User talk:203.142.136.254

August 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to British nationalism, 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. King Arthur article states that he waged war against the Picts and the Scots, which is inconsistent with your edits. Also, facebook post links, which is generally discouraged. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 20 August 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.

I acknowledged that in future edits. Also the Dalriadans were part-Pictish too. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at British nationalism. 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. CoconutOctopus talk 21:14, 20 August 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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. - TNT ^💖 21:19, 20 August 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).

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

Request reason:

This is racist censorship and abusive bullying behaviour 203.142.136.254 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:36, 20 August 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.

June 2019

Hello, I'm Odysseus1479. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gàidhealtachd without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.—Odysseus 1479 22:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These improvements should have been left be. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Coelbren y Beirdd. 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. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2019 (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 2020

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lothian, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:25, 13 January 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.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lothian, 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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:50, 13 January 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.

Greetings,

The northern extent of Gododdin/Lothian from the Marches to the Forth-Clyde Valley is well-known information but here is a source demonstrating it:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZmIYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=justiciar+of+lothian+forth+clyde&source=bl&ots=_eC49hlwWR&sig=ACfU3U3q2-YWO64XIuBBcFJYbjElaQEHZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi99OWKt4DnAhXe63MBHUoLBqIQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=justiciar%20of%20lothian%20forth%20clyde&f=false

It is significant to note that this source discusses the Province of Lothian (aka. the Under-Under-Kingdom of Gododdin) at an earlier time before Galloway had been made into a Province of its own.

Approximately the area of Lancashire & Durham are actually also part of Goddodin; however the Magna Carta's Scottish section had the effect of settling the border at the Marches.

203.142.136.254 (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)203.142.136.254[reply]

I am at a loss to find a passage in that source which discusses, let alone supports your edit that "Historically, the term Lothian referred to a Province encompassing all of southern Scotland below Forth-Clyde Valley: the jurisdiction of the Justiciar of Lothian". Please highlight it if there is one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Mutt Lunker, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 14 January 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.

Page 154; paragraph 3. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)203.142.136.254[reply]

Does not say anything close to that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It discusses exactly that! The facts are staring you in the face mate 203.142.136.254 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph has the word "Lothian" in it and the term "Justiciar of Lothian". None of the rest of what you have said is even discussed. If you believe that it does, highlight the sentence or sentences in question. 15:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"This distinction continued several ages, and has not indeed altogether disappeared at the present day. Thus we are told, in the reign of Alexander, there was a Justiciar of *Scotland* & a Justiciar of *Lothian*. The limits of Scotland, in the 12th century, were still the Firths of Clyde & Forth. In Renfrewshire there is a proverb, *out* of Scotland into *Largs*; the Clyde being the southern boundary. In early ages, whoever crossed the Firth, and landed on the opposite shore, went out of Scotland into Largs." 203.142.136.254 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph discusses various parts of what is now Scotland, one of them being Lothian, and states that they were not in this period regarded as being Scotland. It does not say that together they were consolidated and formed one entity (called Lothian or Largs or anything). That's all. What you have claimed is something entirely different and in no way supported. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say the Province of Lothian/Principality of the Cumbrians was called Largs; Largs just happens to be a prominent port on the Clyde within the Province of Lothian/Principality of the Cumbrians and so the arrivals to the Port from the Duchy of Albany (jurisdiction of the Justiciar of Scotland/Scotia) were said to have left Scotland upon arrival in Lothian.

The article clearly states that the Justiciar of Lothian's jurisdiction had its northern boundary at the Clyde-Forth and that it covered what could be retained by the northerners of the Principality of the Cumbrians. The terms "Province of Lothian" & "Principality of the Cumbrians" (the former is part of the latter actually) are also referred to on several other Wikipedia pages as being the jurisdiction of the Justiciar of Lothian. At the time; there was no Justiciar of Galloway because the Galloway jurisdiction was later carved out of the Province of Lothian/Principality of the Cumbrians. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lothian; 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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the person who is vandalising my evidenced edits; you are biased towards your own side and therefore not fit to make this call. This also constitutes bullying behaviour and should not be tolerated by Wikipedia.203.142.136.254 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using an article talk page to attack another editor after warning was a bad idea

If not by me, someone else. If you have a dispute over sources, go to WP:RSN. If you think the sources don't support the added text, go to WP:NOR. If you think another editor should be sanctioned, go go WP:ANI. But don't use the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; these are sources of action that must be considered by someone. I don't have time for this currently though. I must question the validity of the "Warnings" against me due to his waging an Edit War against me (falsely blaming me for it) and therefore his bias should render him unfit for judgement on these matters. I must also question why Matt Lunker is being allowed to use the Article Talk page to attack me in the first place when he is issuing biased Warnings and in violation of the Common Law? Matt Lunker was the very person who insisted I talk on the Article Talk page instead of on my page. I talked on my page but he stopped replying. He specifically addressed it all to me on the Article Talk before I had even first visited the Article Talk; shouldn't his rhetoric be addressing the facts instead of addressing me? His argument is laden with fallacies such as Ad Hominem.203.142.136.254 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 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 15:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 1 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.

It absolutely isn't original research, it isn't my personal analysis, it isn't unpublished information: evidence has been provided stating exactly what is written. These claims made against the edits have already been demonstrated to be "your theory".203.142.136.254 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) \Note that I first blocked you from Lothian and its talk page, but when I saw that meanwhile you were making the same attacks at another talk page, changed it to a sitewide block. The next one will be much longer if you don't stop. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 2 March 2020 (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.

My bad. I didn't notice that you were WP:Hounding by going to a page not edited since June 2018 to attack the same editor. Maybe a 3 months vacation will see you more willing to work collegially when you return. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 2 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I dispute these fallacious allegations of "personal attacks" and insist these accusations remain totally unproven; if they are proven then where is the proof? If anything; I have been personally attacked all along. Btw the debate on that other page edited is the same debate on that page as is ocurring at Lothian. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

With no effort at all, I found this edit as one of the problematic ones. In particular, I also see that Doug's claim is correct, that page had indeed not been edited since June of 2018. The block therefore appears legitimate. You are free to contest it again; WP:GAB explains how to craft a reasonable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:57, 2 March 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.

June 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 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Languages of the Bailiwick of Guernsey

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Languages of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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! ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tonsillar crypts, 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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my last Edit—albeit with a Reference from a Medical Website to back it up. My apologies for not providing the Reference at the outset. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at File talk:Flag of Australia (1901–1903).svg, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2023 (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.

My sincere apologies; I've been so tired that it slipped my mind until you reminded me here; thanks! I've gone back and signed it just now. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 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.