2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D

March 2023

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Yamla (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You have continued your edit war. Additionally, I see you've been previously warned about this and previously blocked for your edits. I have now blocked you from editing Creole peoples for a period of one year. This block applies to you personally, not just this IP address. Expect the block to be expanded if your inappropriate behaviour continues elsewhere. Alternatively, if you are able to achieve consensus for your changes, your block may be lifted by any admin. WP:GAB explains how to contest this block. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is bias to be blocked for no reason when I’m on a chat going over this and why are the sources that were included not challenged if you just have a personal problem with how the article is written? 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit war was not started by me. This was started by someone else on this past Friday after I posted my information then they said that there were no sources even though hyperlinks were included to other Wikipedia pages which should be allowable. If a person was using a tradition encyclopedia book they would be able to go to other pages to find out more on the information so that should have been allowed as a source, but they didn’t want to accept it. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Also also what sources do you have an issue with and why? 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You're blocked for edit warring. I'm not sure that you even understand this. If you don't, then read Wikipedia:Edit warring. It seems that you are contesting your block. I quote Yamla above: "WP:GAB explains how to contest this block." Contesting it in other ways will fail. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On my end it literally said that the reason for the block was no reason and until 2024 which is quite a bit excessive especially when you all never looked through the sources presented from universities and just kept deleting everything that I contributed without having first looked through all the sources for context. So what is really the issue. Is it that there are no sources or not enough or is it that it’s excessive and over explanatory, it can’t be both. Again your issues are not with me they are with the sources that you choose not to read. Also the excessive blocking without communication is also an issue. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been editing warring, which is not permitted even if you believe that you are correct. You have been editing against consensus, which is also not permitted. You seem to have the misconception that other Wikipedia articles are reliable sources. That's wrong. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. You need to gain consensus for your proposed changes and will not be allowed to jam them through. Cullen328 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If other Wikipedia sources are not reliable then this page should also not be considered reliable, if none of the pages are reliable even when locked, it is you discrediting your own resources. Back when encyclopedias were actually in book form if a person was unfamiliar with something or there was more information to be given from something that was in the encyclopedia the page numbers or an index would be sited including the volume number etc. so why then is an online encyclopedia treated differently than a hardback when the online version is based on the hardback volumes? Again this is bias and referencing other Wikipedia sources should be allowed especially when they are locked pages. How do you think all the other pages were made and for what if they are not allowed to be referred to in giving additional context. Again there is a lot of bias on this page which is probably why many others have created other pages on this subject. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I went over what you wrote and cited, and left my overall analysis on the Creole peoples talk page. I'm borderline offended that you were so insistent on trying to push a very sloppily done edit. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 01:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m offended at how nasty you have been to me especially with me being new to editing. You could have easily explained things or tried to clarify any issues but instead you were very bias and never read the sources before taking sides to see if the issues could be clarified, so you issues are not with me, it’s more that you have issues with what is actually being said and the sources that you refused to read. Also you all blocked me so that an analysis can’t be read after I came for help. All this was was bias and feelings getting in the way and you picked sides and blocked before actually reviewing what was said. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

How many people now have told you that your editing and/or the edits you've been making are unacceptable? At what point do you stop, look at everything that everyone's been telling you, and start to realise that they have a point instead of doubling, tripling, decatupling down on the same argument that has proven to be a bad one time and time again? I notice you're attacking everyone rather than attacking my analysis, which suggests to me you haven't bothered trying to read it. And once again, I am not an administrator and cannot block you; Yamla only blocked you from the article, not its talk page. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please go back to Friday and look at what was unacceptable then come back to me after noticing that I included additional sources from the first person who said that there were no sources. It doesn’t matter how many people have something to say if they are all confederate in perpetuating the same lies. At what point do you actually look through the thread and try to see things from what is being said and not based on your feelings especially when you have elite universities backing up what is being said. Look how utter disrespectful you all have been with the sly remarks and biases without having actually vetted the sources where the information comes from. Again you problems are not with me, they are with the sources from elite universities and sites with reputable reputations like Nation Geographic or Pew Research. Then you come to me and say I’m attacking everyone when I have literally been saying the entire time that I am the one being attacked and my contributions have been vandalized by you all. You are now choosing to deflect and turn this around on me when from the beginning I have said you all are ganging up and none of you has challenge the sources. If your issues with what is written is based on the sources then it’s your responsibility to go to those elite universities and challenge the work they have put out instead of leaning to personal biases. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla and Cullen328, FYI I deleted Draft:Creole Peoples 2 made by this IP /64 because it appears to have been an attempt to circumvent their p-block. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you deleting a page that I created and submitted for publication while I’m still working on it? 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You are stalking me especially while I’m working on a project that I submitted that is a draft. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You are vandalizing my page that I submitted for review which is not the same as your page if you read. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And once again you confirm you haven't read my analysis what-so-ever, considering that the sources were amongst the things I assessed. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 04:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You all practice bully culture and when I asked you about the sources in the chat the only one that you mentioned was on move on so no you never mentioned the sources and you all have shown yourselves to not only be liars, but hypocrites as well. Who are you to delete a draft the was submitted giving me three months to work on it and how is that not vandalism? 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you have chosen to double down on your personal attacks and harassment of other editors instead of adopting a collaborative attitude, your talk page access has been revoked. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options going forward. Try thinking things over. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You have been blocked for two weeks from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

This is a collaborative project. Engaging in personal attacks and harassment by calling your fellow editors "liars' and "hypocrites" is simply unacceptable here. So, spend your time off editing learning about Wikipedia’s behavioral norms, and come to the realization that it is your behavior that has been the problem, not anyone else's behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The "hypocrite" accusation I can at least explain. When they were on IRC earlier in an attempt to find allies for their edit war, I told him that I would not be commenting further on the status of the article because I had also started to revert his edits for the same reasons as Materialscientist had been. (At this time, jmcgnh was attempting to help him, to no avail.) Seeing the conversation between he and jmcgnh was going in circles, and doing so fast, I bluntly told him to leave the channel because further discussion was plainly going to be unfruitful, which jmcgnh ultimately agreed with. His behaviour then was virtually identical to how it is now - he was accusing us of bias, accusing Materialscientist of lying about the article being unsourced (their reverts did not address sourcing), and generally refusing to listen to anything jmcgnh or anyone else was trying to tell him in good faith. He left briefly, then returned immediately after Yamla's partial block; his exact wording was "The person Yamla who blocked me on the creole peoples page wrote to me twice and when I go to write back I’m not allowed to reply". This is an instance of a person who won't heed any sort of instruction or take any form of legitimate criticism, as this user talk page makes crystal clear. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 10:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t come at anyone starting anything, everything was instigated against me not the other way around and the log shows that. You all were the ones deleting contributions made and deleting other creative works on their own pages because you don’t like what is being said and that is purely stalking and harassment toward me. For you to go to other pages that I’m working on and delete contributions is vandalism. How can you say that it is not. Again your issues are with the sources going against the false narrative that you all want to push. What’s next you stealing the sources that I put out and taking credit by plagiarism. It is you all that don’t stop harassing me not the other way around and if you were a fellow editor then you should have some common decency to comment before deleting pages that you didn’t create that were already submitted and given three months to work on. Again this is not the only creole page on Wikipedia and you don’t own the word creole. It’s you all who needs to go back and look at how nasty you all have been practicing bully culture. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Another one learns of the bully cult of Wikipedia. Well done to standing your ground when they were completely wrong about the facts. They're a bunch losers who have to use anonymous cyberspace to make themselves feel superior. 2600:1700:8369:0:E41F:8994:CFFA:241F (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

One thing all the blocks show is how much you all have bullying and harassing me and I’m going to the site owner over this. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Who would that be? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

---