User talk:92.4.106.41

December 2022

Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of prestige dialects, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2022 (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.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anglo-Scandinavian, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2022 (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.

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Elmet into Culture of Yorkshire. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2022 (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.

January 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at House of York, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Constantine the Great. RPI2026F1 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Improving geographic specificity (as i did in the linked) in articles is important for the intellectual integrity & vigour of wikipedia. Reverted. 92.4.106.41 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits are redundant and nonsensical, like this one. A common person can see that North Yorkshire is obviously part of Yorkshire. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody's from Yorkshire, it's good to clarify and ensure that geographic specifity is upheld and made clear for new readers.

Allowing an allagorical note for a second, South Sudan is not a part of Sudan, and North Korea is not a part of South Korea.

Or East Yemen was not part of West Yemen.

East Germany was not part of West Germany.

All edits are made in good faith with intent to improve the colaborative knowlege sharing this wonderful site allows. 92.4.106.41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exceptions and not the norm. Document the exceptions but don't add redundant information. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Exceptions" is a reletive term different to each individual and how they interpret socio cultural mores and social norms.

Redundant and inaccurate information should be corrected, we do agree. 92.4.106.41 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the Sudan example, none of these are analogous. @RPI2026F1 said that North Yorkshire is part of Yorkshire, not that it's part of South Yorkshire. CodeTalker (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The article didn't reflect those facts you state, hence why the article needed improving via editing. 92.4.106.41 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Material Scientist's incoming accident.

Wikipedia longbeards who censor information and hog articles and remove information due to their personal beliefs are a cancer on society, academia, and spit on the principles of Wikipedia.

MaterialScientist is a racist who is hogging articles relating to the "English" ethnic group and removing sourced information, in addition to using his decade long scoial status of being a wikipedia Gnome for years to cover up his vandalism, according to editing logs Materialscientist rarely adds new content over the last month, and instead censors and book burns wikipedia like some Staunch Iconoclast.

For the Record, MaterialScientist is a racist English Supremicist old straight white man who believes himself and his mind to be superior and a better curator of wikipedia then others outside of his specific and overspecialised area of expertise.

Boomers man, bleedin, bleedin boomers.

Ay Up. 92.4.106.41 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack as above and below and your block will probably be extended. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are placing yourself in a compromised position.

You have completely ignored the issues with this cabal of bad-faith wikipedia greybeards who are intentionally enacting historical revisionism with a Pro-Eglish Nationalist bias.

This is evidenced that you are in a compromised position and are covering up editorial isses.

For example, in your adress above you fail to note any issues with my editing and have made a kneejerk judgment, this is against the policies, ethos, and principles of the Wikimedia Foundation, to your very strong shame.

Outline reasons instead of jumping to defence of fellow old, white, and revisionist wikipedia Gnomes.

I am suprised wikipedia allows people like yourself into positions of wikipedia-moderation, this is an incredibly poor example of journalistic and encyclopedic standards from the user above. 92.4.106.41 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by English Nationalists who valdalised the "English People" wikipedia page when clarification was added over Jorvik, the Norwegian influences on Great Britain, and how Yorkshire has been proven in the 2015 Nature Genetic Sequencing study that Yorkshire poople have a unique Genetic identifier.

Material Sicentist and several others have been on an orchestrated campaign of iconoclasism by removing and using misinformation to confuse the history of the British isles in relation to Yorkshire, The Kingdom of Jorvik, Anglo-Scandinavians, and a bizarre compulsion to inaccurately conflate "The Danelaw" with "The Kingdom of Jorvik"

Danelaw was the name for the areas of Angle and Saxon settlment, whereas the Kingdom of Jorvik was a seperate, Independent Norse kingdom which had centuries of settlemnt from Scandinavian origin peoples, such as the Danes, Norwegians, and Vikings.

This is historical concensus and a select group, a cabal of wikipedia greybeards, (most likely to be old, straight, white men.) are intentionally supressing this information and therefore are actively undermining Wikipedia's Values and the Principles of the Wikimedia Foundation.

It was this group of radical English Nationalist Historical Revisionists who have blocked and frustrated my good-faith postive contributions to wikipedia.

Unblock requested 92.4.106.41 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests should focus on your own editing, and not make personal attacks. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (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.

92.4.106.41 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   You are placing yourself in a compromised position.
   You have completely ignored the issues with this cabal of bad-faith wikipedia greybeards who are intentionally enacting historical revisionism with a Pro-Eglish Nationalist bias.
   This is evidenced that you are in a compromised position and are covering up editorial isses.
   For example, in your adress above you fail to note any issues with my editing and have made a kneejerk judgment, this is against the policies, ethos, and principles of the Wikimedia Foundation, to your very strong shame.
   Outline reasons instead of jumping to defence of fellow old, white, and revisionist wikipedia Gnomes.
   I am suprised wikipedia allows people like yourself into positions of wikipedia-moderation, this is an incredibly poor example of journalistic and encyclopedic standards from the user above.

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely and your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Doug Weller talk 20:23, 3 January 2023 (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.