User talk:24.92.243.9

February 2020

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Frozen. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Bantu languages—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I'm Berrely. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Luhya people—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 09:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kisii people, 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) 19:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 2020

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you are blocked, please read

WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Also Help:Referencing for beginners. Keep you personal opinions out of articles. "It is rude and uncalled for to call people what they are not and the Abagirango are not Luo. The Josuba, Joka-Jok and Joka-Kombe should be discussed on the Luo wikipedia page as they really belong there." doesn't belong in an article - have you ever read an encyclopedia and seen anything like that? Explain your edits also. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 10:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Request for block review

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).

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

Request reason:

My IP Address 24.92.243.9 was blocked on 19 May 2020 on grounds that I included personal opinions on the in the articles on Girango people and Thimlich Ohinga as shown by the following block log entry:"10:33, 19 May 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs blocked 24.92.243.9 talk with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) (

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

original research, adding statements such as " this is guesswork and mere desperation to be associated with the mentioned structures." and "It is rude and uncalled for to call people what they are not and the Abagirango are not Luo. The Josuba, Joka-Jok and Joka-Kombe should be discussed on the Luo wikipedia page as they really belong there." to articles, etc.)" I think I was unfairly blocked because the provided reason for the block was not enough to block my IP address.The editor had issues with the two articles mentioned, but the provided reason for the block appears as though I also use inappropriate language. I feel the block was not necessary because the expressions that the editor considers inappropriate could have been corrected as it was a first time occurrence. The editor did leave any alerts/notices regarding the expressions quoted as inappropriate to have them rectified, but went ahead and suddenly blocked my IP address. Even more serious, the editor reverted many of my other edits that did not have anything to do with the provided reason for blocking my IP address. The sudden reversions of many other articles (refer to reversions made editor yesterday for IP address 24.92.243.9) which was unnecessary and destructive as the reversions only made the articles worse, especially the "Girango" article which is in a big mess. For instance the article has a "Girango" title, but the content talks about the "Luo" people and I basically made edits to the content to match the "Girango" title. If the page was meant to talk about the Joka-jok, Joka-kombe and Josuba, then the article title is should be "LUO" and not "Girango". For the Thimlich Ohinga article, the "" this is guesswork and mere desperation to be associated with the mentioned structures." " comment was provided as an explanation for the the citation needed notice/alert and was not on the article itself. It can not be viewed directly on the article by readers unless they click on the citation needed alert. For the "Girango" article, the "It is rude and uncalled for to call people what they are not and the Abagirango are not Luo. The Josuba, Joka-Jok and Joka-Kombe should be discussed on the Luo wikipedia page as they really belong there." could have been written better than this. However, blocking my IP address was not necessary at all given that this occurred for just those two articles and for the first time. That was not enough to take such drastic measures of blocking an IP address given that there are many who have done worse than that. My IP address was unfairly blocked and I am now requesting for the block to be reviewed and lifted.

Decline reason:

There are more than enough warnings here. The block was perfectly appropriate. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was not a warning, I was just blocked suddenly without any warnings. The reason given for the block is weak because I have not committed any vandalism and an issue with just some expressions highlighted on the block explanation above are not enough for a block. The block was not appropriate because there was no warning given beforehand and the block was by surprise. Also wikipedia has not made it clear that the block reasons provided by Weller are vandalism or can be used to block people. The block was not carefully done. You can't say that there are more than enough warnings when there was no warnings given before this block and block reason is very different from the given warnings. It just does not make sense. Otherwise make all your block reasons clear so that users don't get surprise blocks due to unawareness of whether their actions are wrong. I have seen much worse languages that the two expressions above used as a basis for the block.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for vandalism, nor is vandalism the only reason a user can be blocked. There certainly was a warning given, it is on this very page. The reason for the block is very clear; you cannot add original research to articles. That you think it isn't enough to be blocked is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, but I concur with the block and you offer no grounds as to why it should be lifted. Thus, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2020 (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.

24.92.243.9 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

you seem to contradict the block reasons given by the blocker. He has clearly summarized his major reasons for the block as follows: "WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Also Help:Referencing for beginners. Keep you personal opinions out of articles. "It is rude and uncalled for to call people what they are not and the Abagirango are not Luo. The Josuba, Joka-Jok and Joka-Kombe should be discussed on the Luo wikipedia page as they really belong there." doesn't belong in an article - have you ever read an encyclopedia and seen anything like that? Explain your edits also. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)" This was not enough to block a person given this only comprised less than 5% of the "Girango" and "Thimlich Ohinga" articles where two expressions were found. These two sentences could have been re-written without block. Since he found that the sentences didn't fit well with Wikipedia standards, then he shhould have written the sentences to accepted versions and given an alert that the two sentences didn't fit well with wikipedia or he could have written notice like the other notices on the page to have me rectify the sentences. Simply reversing to a former worse form and blocking the editor is not helpful and is destructive. My understanding is that editing of content on wikipedia is a teamwork thing. The other reason provided for the block is original research which is also baseless based on the reversions done by the blocker. On the reversion done by the blocker on the "Kuria" people, he cites original research as the reason for the reversion and he has reverted to an earlier version that contains a paragraph that could be considered original research. This is his mistake because he reverted the article to an earlier version with a possibly original research paragraph without citation and then now blames me of original research. This original research accusation seems to be on one article and he is the very person who reverted the article to that earlier version with errors. His original research claims are rather baseless. I understand that you are trying to defend the blocker, but still his reasons given for blocking are very weak and not strong enough to block a person. Based on his reversions of other articles, the blocker lacks knowledge of the articles he edits. The only solutions provided by this editor on the articles he has edited is either blocking people or reversions to earlier versions which are worse rather than helping improve the articles. The editor is not serious about his edits and just edits articles for the sake of doing it and blocking people without seriously accessing their actions. I find the other alerts given by other editors on my talk page to be more constructive than those of this blocker. Blocking people even with very minor mistakes like those highlighted by this blocker is not helping protect wikipedia, but destroying it. Wikipedia should be a place where people get true summaries of things/events and not false summaries like the "Girango" article where the title and article content don't match up. The "Girango" article is a complete total lie where you have title of "Girango" yet in the content you are describing the Luo people. All this blocker could not on this article is revert it to a more false version without correcting the one sentence that did not sound right. This is not protecting Wikipedia, but rather damaging it. Wikipedia can only be protected by hiring people who have deep knowledge of the articles they edit and not just editing articles for the sake of doing it and blocking people for the sake of doing it. Blocking people is not helping wikipedia, but damaging it as the very people you block are motivated by the blocks to look for other ways to access Wikipedia and/or have ways to contribute positively to wikipedia 24.92.243.9 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not addressing your own problematic actions leading to the block. That is what you need to address. And continuing your content dispute is not what an unblock request is for - you should address that on the relevant article talk page when you are unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2020 (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.

Wikipedia is actually not interested in truth, but in what can be verified. In addition, expert or deep knowledge of a subject is not required to edit any article or topic. Wikipedia does not hire people; editors are volunteers. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to evade your block will not help you get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evading block here, I am just being honest with you. Please stop blocking people carelessly and the people you block can still access it despite being blocked. So is blocking a solution? Your assertion that "Wikipedia is actually not interested in truth, but in what can be verified. In addition, expert or deep knowledge of a subject is not required to edit any article or topic. Wikipedia does not hire people; editors are volunteers. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)" justifies why Wikipedia is a rather useless page that needs to be replaced with more useful pages. So can you verify the false content you have on the Girango people? You are basically lying to people that the page is on the Girango people yet in the content you are really describing the Luo people. So how can you verify that information in an article that doesn't have citations? Since you created a page titled "Girango" and describing the Luo people, why didn't you instead add that description to the Luo people page since they already have a wikipedia page? Since wikipedia is edited by volunteers, why are these very volunteers blocking other volunteers and accusing other editors of the very mistakes they are committing? Expert knowledge of subject is crucial to ensure constructive edits and reversions. How can you edit what you don't understand? this is what makes wikipedia a weak page. So this block that you are defending is supposed to be an expert? this is a big joke. Wikipedia needs to look for serious experts that understand what they are editing and not just reverting other editors and blocking other editors just for the sake of doing it. I know you are trying your best to defend the blocker, but face the truth that the block was not necessary and the blocker is a weaker expert. He is not helping wikipedia by blocking other people whenever he feels like blocking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.243.9 (talk)

You only need one open request; subsequent comments should be standard, unformatted comments. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I would like to express my concerns about Dough Weller. After blocking me last month, he now seems to follow my edits with a bad motive as he appears to revert some of my edits perhaps to look for a reason to block me. I believe that Wikipedia has many administrators and I am requesting for Doug Weller to stop following me. I will be grateful if my request and concerns can be taken into consideration.24.92.243.9 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place for a grievance with administrator behavior would be the administrator's noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That said, bringing a complaint there will result in your own behavior being examined as well, to see if Doug is correct to monitor your edits- as any editor is free to do. Be very sure that you want to go down that road before you post a grievance there. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gusii language has been reverted.
Your edit here to Gusii language was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/99544/Nyauma_A%20Phonological%20Reconstruction%20of%20Ekegusii%20and%20Egekuria%20Nouns-a%20Comparative%20Analysis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Request for correction of Content in the "Girango People" Article.

I am requesting for the correction of content on the Girango people article or deletion of the article because it makes no sense. For instance, the title Girango and the content are not matching. The content describes the Luo people while the title talks about something else. The title also lacks citations to support the given claims on the article. The article appears to be a duplicate since there are already articles on the luo people and Suba people which makes the Girango article unnecessary. I am suggesting merging the article with the Luo people article since it is specifically talking about luos or deleting it because it makes no sense and the content is so mixed and uncited. Thank you for your understanding.24.92.243.9 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2020 (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.