User talk:77.100.234.159

gfhfghdfgsdgfsdggfhfgjhdfhjfdstfggthfghdfhgdfgjhfdfgdfhfhjfghdtfh

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Comfort women into Wartime sexual violence. 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) 22:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sexual slavery, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 5 August 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sexual slavery. Misleading edit summaries, blanking of materials, likely socking EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 5 August 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.

March 2018

(121.214.36.82 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

You are obviously not a moderator or someone who has the right to a send anyone a warning message, just for making imitations warning alone I could report you for it. I don't know why you seem to have a desire to seem revert my every edit and read you weird messages.

You said find a source ? There's no source to support early Japanese/Koreans have South Asian genetic input that's why I removed it, if it did has source you or someone would have have cited it. I couldn't find any data other than misleading forums that claims that has but have no paper study, no links to support this so I removed it.

About proto-Mongoloid. Madagascar is a country that's clearly Sub-Saharan African, Polynesians are mixed, Ainu look nothing like people from southern China, southeast Asia. The whole source from a random outdated book source.

Also about Philippines, there's not a single need to write about historical violence against Filipino women. Every country in Europe, Africa, Asia, America's of every ethnicity had suffered sexual crimes by insiders or outsiders. For examples countries like India, Iran, Ukraine, China, Iraq , Germany would be a very long story to write about their own countries sexual violence, same for every ethnicity in the world. It's really a need for such cruelty, anyone can start writing horrible history on every female group.

Instead of fighting, accept that fact that you made mistakes and learn from them. Your spiel about "proto-Mongoloid" makes no sense. You clearly know nothing about Madagascan people, so what if Ainus don't look like Southern Chinese? If you knew anything about the things that you edit you would know that "proto-Mongoloid" is an obsolete term, it has no scientific meaning today. Secondly, "bias" edits on Chinese Americans. What is biased about it? Read the sources IP. It's clear to see that you are biased in the way you edit Wikipedia, elevating pages on Chinese or Southeast Asian articles but degrading those that are related to India or Indian people. Stop this POV nonsense. Don't you dare tell me that I'm doing the wrong thing when you're screaming in the comment sections at other users aiming to forward your racist agenda. Finally, your anger over an article related to the Philippines is completely unjust, Wikipedia does not subscribe to people's POV edits, understand that for goodness sake. Erasing that information from that article is not going to change the reality of the situation so I don't know why you're trying to remove it. (121.214.36.82 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

So you're okay with writing about sexual slavery in Thailand and Pakistan but you don't want information published about violence against women in the Philippines? Cruelty? Practice what you preach. (121.214.36.82 (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Your own mistake is you couldn't get the source right for the things you claimed also you keep giving out fake warnings I'm going to to do the same to you. Madgascar or Malagasy people are mixture of Mongoloid and Africa. Ainu look like a totally different thing from Southern Chinese so it makes no sense for there to even be a comparison. I don't remember making one single edit on Indian or Indian people, first prove to me of this fact that you claim/or believe in before you make assumptions.

When I wrote about sexual slavery of Thailand or Pakistan? You do know if you want a whole page of sexual violence history of Filipina women anyone and including me can make a whole wikipedia page dedicated to Pakistani women sexual violence under the Greeks, Arabs, Persians, Mongols, Central Asian Turks, Mughals, Kushans, Saasanids, Afghans ect Is it necessary ?

- (77.100.234.159 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

User 121.214.36.82 pretending to be a moderator and using proxy address

Note: User talk:121.214.36.82 is not moderator and uses a proxy address to bypass editing, he also does not hold any rank in wikipedia but has giving me fake warning messages 2 times by intimidating to be a moderator. He send warnings so that he can scare people into not challenging his authority. The link is here ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.100.234.159&diff=828544856&oldid=828544012 he takes advantage of the fact that other moderators have given me warning a long time ago ( half year ) , my last edit had been since half year ago but this user uses a proxy address.

- (77.100.234.159 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.234.159 (talk) [reply]

He is also a pro-Indian editor with a agenda, making positive edits on Indians/ South Asians but negative edits on Chinese.

On the Dravido-Korean languages wiki page, I removed a text that says this " Recent genetic studies, however, have revealed an early South Asian genetic input in the development of the Korean people and, to an even greater degree, in that of the Japanese, which could conceivably add weight to such a theory. " HOWEVER it wasn't references nor is there a genetic study/link supporting this claim so I removed it and later he claimed I'm I'm a disgusting person racist against Indian, or that I have hatred against Indians just because I stated there is no proof., or that I have hatred against Indians just because I stated there is no proof. He than deliberately edited it back with a random genetic study that has no mention on Koreans and South Asians but was instead about Okinawans and Taiwanese aborigines, it was later removed by User Kanguole https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dravido-Korean_languages&action=history - (77.100.234.159 (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Stupid mistake of wikipedia

The page was blocked for three years already and was uplifted and now I'm blocked again for not breaking a single rule. Berean Hunter had blocked me-
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Berean Hunter blocked me

Special:Contributions/118.174.215.68. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni (talk)03:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter

<<remove personal attack>>

You might get away with that nonsense elsewhere. Personal attacks here are not tolerated. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why on the bottom it says------ 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.

What kind of garbage nonsense is this ????????

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).

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

Request reason:

This account was already blocked for 3 years and the account was uplifted in February 11th 2018, why the hell is is blocked for another year when I've broken no rule?

Decline reason:

block evasion. You should go to your original account to appeal. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:54, 7 March 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.

April 2019

Hello, I'm Notimelivelong. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of medieval Mongol tribes and clans 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. --Notimelivelong (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Harry Shum Jr., you may be blocked from editing. Mikemyers345 (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2019 (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.

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.