Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Vamlos, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.

There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments about Bablos939 at Talk:Interracial marriage#Bablos939 is wrong are not appropriate per WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. Your best course of action is going to be to focus on the content being discussed and not specific editors. If you feel the other editor's behavior needs to be assessed, then the place to do so is at WP:ANI; however, be advised that your behavior will also be assessed if you go to ANI. Moreover, if you continue to make statements that are uncivil and are seen as personal attacks against other editors, an administrator is likely going to step in and take action against your account without warning.

It's quite possible to discuss your concerns about the article Interracial marriage without commenting on other editors and I strongly suggest you try and do that from hereon if you want to last very long as a Wikipedia editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand now. I will watch the way I write very carefully from now on. I'm confused but I'll try. I also want to add that Bablos939 had used very offensive comments against Chinese women [1] he done here and he wrote similar offensive things before at the bottom of the page insulting Chinese women with insensitive comments http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939 Vamlos (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial marriage

I've seen your edits on the talk page of the wiki page of Interracial marriage and I wanna help you relies that you are showing an extreme and clear bias towards Chinese men, I don't wanna report you and I'll try leave it to my last resort but the editing of yours and 'many others' can be considered abuse reporting and if you don't help clean up the abuse which has been left on the Interracial marriage page, you'll look really guilty, so please help do the right thing and I won't report you, instead if you don't response or take action I'll first take our dissection to Abuse Reporting, but mostly my next step will be Dispute Resolution, I wish you the best and I hope you do what is right :) -- Toby Mitches (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared on the personal attacks on Bablos939 but will you do something about Bablos939 recent post against Chinese women because that is hundred times more offensive. This is what he wrote " Numerous Chinese women have been sold to Korean men and U.S. soldiers. According to the data, many Chinese women seem to prefer Korean men. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Chinese women are marrying Korean men. Mongolians owned most of the Chinese women. " I find this to be completely racist and offensive, because he wrote that before in his talkpage. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939 He done it before in the bottom of this link. I'm not showing extreme and clear bias towards Chinese men when it's edited like a decade ago by others. It's not something new, it has existed in the wiki page for more than 7-8 years. What's clear to me though I've read a lot of racist and offensive things. Not just to Chinese women but Chinese and it's people in general. The abusive comments like that is not only abusive but indiscriminate hatred. Vamlos (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos, let me start of by saying, thank you for continuing to be peaceful and for trying to fix some of your aggressive behavior against Bablos939 and for responding to my response when even I was less than civil, also I have seen Bablos939's accusations about Chinese women and his just quoting his links just like you do, his not being racist in those quotes, but I'll agree that bringing up women being sold shouldn't be in the interracial marriage wiki, but I speak out against him for that, however you are clearly bias towards Chinese men, also whether or not information was written 7 to 8 years ago doesn't mean its right, also claiming your not bias because you didn't write in the wiki itself doesn't hold up, you have shown a clear bias towards Chinese men, however Bablos939 is starting to act somewhat uncivil, but your fixation on Chinese men marring outside their race is odd, I just wonder, why do you continue to pursue this narrative? I ask this because it has made the interracial marriage wiki a rather strange read, their is often conflicting points on interracial Asian couples and the fact that Chinese men are referred to extreme amount of times is just plain concerning, once again, it's not too late to set things right. -- Toby Mitches (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing offensive to Koreans or to anyone. I did make quick accusations which I admit is wrong. Bablos939 is far more offensive to Chinese. I also have no fixation on Chinese men but because Bablos939 keeps targeting Chinese men. Chinese men are not referred to in a extreme of times, other ethcities like British, Arabs, Turks, Indians are also reffered many times. The edits have existed for nearly a decade now all of sudden a user descides to only target Chinese men and write offensive things to Chinese men/women. It's not with any good intentions for wikipedia, is simply because the user has anti-Chinese motives. Wikipedia allows you to fill up the wiki page with any ethnicity on interracial marriages. Wikipedia does not have a rule that restricts any ethnicity from being mentioined a number of times if they are based on historical facts. Most of the recent foreign Asian immigrants intermarriages in the 19th and 20th century were Chinese male migrants especially during the coolie trade and Chinese migration for gold outside of china. I would say because Southern Chinese traveled around the world more than any other ethnocities and the population was also all males.

Also the Chinese coolies were massive or in very huge number in Latin America. They were also the first East Asian origins to be in Latin America, they were all almost males and there's Chinatown in Latin America because of them too. Indian were numerous too but their female and male ratio was almost the same where as Chinese men:women ratio had a massive difference.

Sex ratios and intermarriage among coolies

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Coolie#Sex_ratios_and_intermarriage_among_coolies

"A major difference between the Chinese and the Indian coolie trades was that women and children were brought from India, along with men, while Chinese coolies were 99% male.[60] This led to a high rate of Chinese men marrying women of other ethnicities such as Indian women and mixed race Creole women. The contrast in the female to male ratio between Indian and Chinese immigrants has been compared by historians.[61]"Vamlos (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos, I didn't accuse you of being 'offensive to Koreans or to anyone' on this talk page, but regards, you have been offensive towards Koreans and towards Bablos939, but you haven't been offensive towards me, and I will admit Bablos939 has been offensive at times, even I myself have been offensive, but Bablos939 shows a true interest in bettering wiki, he may often jump to extreme measures and at times isn't civil, but I believe Bablos939 has a pure intent to fix the abusive reporting on the interracial marriage wiki page, also you are wrong when you say Chinese are not referred to an extreme amount of times, as proof:

'British' appears 70 times

'Arab' appears 38 times

'Turk' appears 11 times

'Indian' appears 233 times

'Chinese' appears 336 times

Not only does 'Indian' and 'Chinese' appear an extreme amount of times, but almost every time they are mentioned, it refers to Indian women marrying outside their race and how Chinese men marry outside their race, this once again shows how the interracial marriage wiki page is being abuse reported, someone is making it out that Chinese men are always marring outside their race and that Indian women are always marrying outside their race, this is not normal, and you are the one who is help promoting this ideology, this is why I believe you are bias towards Chinese men, and is helping this abuse reporting to continue, whether or not you started this, you are contributing to the problem, and once again, its not to late, you are about to fix this issue, please, do the right thing here -- Toby Mitches (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Turks, you should realize Kazakhs, Tatars, Uzbeks, Ottoman, Azeri ect all Turks. And Arabs have many different ethnicity names just like Turks too. I write everything according to facts and it wasn't me who promoted it. You also didn't include Chinese women have been mentioned LARGE ARMOUNT OF TIMES in this wikipedia articles. Marriages to foreign men have been mentioned in wikipedia Macau, America, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore, Reunion, Hong Kong, Manchuria and other countries. Most of them are Chinese women and foreign men. You were to fixated on Chinese men and not Chinese women because if you read the page you would see that you have made a lot of exaggerations and misinterpretations. Chinese women have been mentioned many times. It's that historical marriages of coolies and immigrants were almost all males because few women would become coolies and immigrants.Vamlos (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos, you are being unreasonable here, I've now pointed out that fact that 'Chinese' are referred to an extreme amount of times and you still won't agree with me, I'm trying to show you I'm not fixated on 'Chinese men', I'm fixated on showing the truth, I agree with you that Chinese 'coolie' men left China in large number and many of them did marry local foreign women in the counties they settled in, and I agree that if you want to store information about Chinese men marring local women, please do that in the coolie wiki, all the links you believe are true and that you want to put on wiki, you can put them into the coolie page, I won't try to stop you, but the interracial marriage wiki is has 'The specific problem is: Places undue weight on a particular aspect rather than the subject as a whole, mostly caused by' abuse reporting, if someone wants to mention Chinese coolie men marrying outside their race in the 'interracial marriage' wiki, they can do so under the 'China' section having a paragraph dedicated to the coolie men, but please don't go to every south american country and only talk about Chinese men, that is abuse reporting, when you 'place undue weight on a particular aspect', there is way too many information only related to Chinese men marrying outside their race, I know you didn't edit those paragraphs, but you are helping them stay on the interracial marriage page, and just to show you:

America: has a paragraph decided to Chinese men marrying African American women, there is mention of Chinese women, but not to the extent of Chinese men

Hawaii: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women

Canada: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Latin America: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, there is mention of Chinese women, but it actually talks about how they didn't marry outside their race

Guyana: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, there is mention of Chinese women, but it actually talks about how they didn't marry outside their race

Trinidad: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, there is mention of Chinese women, but it actually talks about how they didn't marry outside their race as much as Chinese men

Peru: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. There is even links to 'Chinese Peruvian' but no other nationality

Cuba: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. There is even links to 'Chinese Cuban' but no other nationality

Mexico: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. There is even links to 'Chinese immigration to Mexico' but no other nationality

Costa Rica: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. There is even links to 'Chinese people in Costa Rica' but no other nationality

Venezuela: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. There is even links to 'Chinese Venezuelan' but no other nationality

Jamaica: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, there is mention of Chinese women, but it actually talks about how they didn't marry outside their race. There is even links to 'Chinese Jamaicans' but no other nationality

Middle East and North Africa: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Elsewhere in Africa: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. But this is isn't extreme

Southern Africa: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Mauritius: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

Réunion: no extreme mention of Chinese people

West Africa: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Australia: has a paragraph on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women. You even edited this paragraph

Central Asia: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Afghanistan: no extreme mention of Chinese people

China, Western regions: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

China, Manchuria: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

Hong Kong: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

Macau: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

Taiwan: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

Japan: no extreme mention of Chinese people, kinda

Korea: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Southeast Asia: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Vietnam: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Burma: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Malaysia and Singapore: no extreme mention of Chinese people, but does talk about how Chinese women married outside their race

Philippines: no extreme mention of Chinese people

Indian subcontinent: has many paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but no mention of Chinese women.

All of Europe: no extreme mention of Chinese people, there are some paragraphs on Chinese men marrying outside their race, but they don't look to be harmful

With this now shown, can you please see why it is concerning at how many times Chinese people are mentioned, and even when they are, its only about how Chinese men marry outside their race, the heavy mention on only this topic is considered abuse reporting, can you now see my point? I'm not trying to get you into trouble anymore, even if you want, I'll help you edit details about Chinese men marrying outside their race but only on the coolie page and even if you want I'll also help you edit details about Chinese men marrying outside their race but only into one paragraph under the Chinese section in the interracial marriage page, would you be happy with that? -- Toby Mitches (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in continuing. I have many diverse different pages in wikipedia.

Also you invested so much time and work on this but I don't believe that you read everything, you rushed too much and properly skipped most of them.

It makes sense that MAJORITY OF VAST MAJORITY of the marriages in 19th-20th century were Southern Chinese men with black women, white women, latina, to be honest there massive marriages of Chinese men and Southeast Asian women. Many Indonesian, Thai, Filipino, many millions of them will for example claimed descent from Chinese but that isn't included, maybe because they more similar in race with the only difference is that Southeast Asian are dark skinned and is part of the Malay race while Chinese is East Asian race.

Chinese and Indian are the biggest population in the world. Chinese have also migrated in every coutnry more than anyone especially during the coolie trade and california gold rush. It only makes sense

There's too much exaggeration. Saying the wikipedia doesn't mention Chinese women. DID YOU REALLY READ THE WHOLE THING ?

United Kingdom

British Chinese women (30%) were twice as likely as their male counterparts (15%) to marry someone from a different ethnic group. In 2001, 2% of all marriages in the United Kingdom were inter-ethnic

In Japan In 2003, there were 740,191 marriages in Japan, of which 28,831 involved a non-Japanese bride and 7,208 involved a non-Japanese groom. Non-Japanese women who married a Japanese man were predominantly of Chinese (10,242), Filipino (7,794), Korean (5,318), Thai (1,445) and Brazilian (296) nationality.

Most population of Réunion Creoles who are of mixed ancestry and make up the majority of the population. Interracial marriages between European men and Chinese men with African women, Indian women, Chinese women, Madagascar women were also common

Hong Kong and Macau, the Tanka people are basically ethnic Chinese, although it's origins it's due to assimilation of Southern natives. But than Southern Chinese are also the result of of intermixing with Northern Chinese and Southern natives and became Chinese.

In countries like early Hawaii, America the vast majority are Chinese men. It does mention Chinese women in United states

" In order to contain the violence, both Mongol and Central Asian Semu Muslim women and men of both sexes were required by Ming Code to marry Han Chinese after the first Ming Emperor Hongwu passed the law in Article 122. Han women who married Hui men became Hui, and Han men who married Hui women also became Hui. "

Mauritus already clearly stated Chinese women but they rarely came.

I could say more but this is exhausting just to make a reply it's using a lot of my time and energy because you mentioned so many countries but didn't check all of them completely. You must rushed it quickly without reading everything and I can understand though because it would take many hours to concentrate and read everything. But it's better to choose a few at a time, that way you won't make many mistakes. Vamlos (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding, I am also tried of this, also you are right, I did miss those statements about Chinese women, but almost every country on the south american section is about Chinese men explicitly, and this is what I want to fix, so will you allow me to edit the information about Chinese people on the interracial marriage wiki page? I'll be honest, I am going to remove a lot of content, mostly under south america, but I'll update the 'china' section with a paragraph only about coolie Chinese men and about how they married local south american women, would you be happy with this? Please, I don't wanna fight with you any more -- Toby Mitches (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bablos939 tried to remove or interpret on South American section but was reverted and warned by 4 admins/or respected editor, he was told to gain general concesus. In the intermarrial marriage talk page archive 2, there was 5-6 editors that were against him. It's best to include many European ethnicities and Asian ethnicities into those section that way Chinese isn't mentioned that much. The problem is nobody even bothers add other European/Asian ethnicities in Latin America. Well these Chinese interrmarriages in South America existed long time ago and were approved by the admins years ago. There's no rule that says you can't edit same ethnicity in different countries as long as is based on historical facts. Only 9 out of 65 Latin America, North America, Carribean countries have been mentioined. There's many missing information on the wikipedia pages that can you can fill it. You are allowed to create new sections on different countries.This article page is far from being complete also is not a page that many people vists. In the last 5 years it recieves only 1.5 million views, is not a popular wiki page.Vamlos (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI

Hello, Vamlos,

Your edit removed the request of another editor so I reverted it. You can not add content on this page that removes the edits of other users. I recommend you take the time to file a SPI case if you would want an investigation started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I'm confused with. Where am I suppose to file a ISP case ?

It says this " To make a request here, copy the following template and paste it to the end of this section (quick link to edit) – replacing "header" with an informative title, and adding underneath the template any relevant information – then sign using "Vamlos (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)", preview, and click "save". I did all of that but I really don't understand. Do I copy it underneath ? I'm try again but please send help me for or please do it for me.Vamlos (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To open a SPI investigation you need to read the instructions in the "How to open an investigation:" box. Press the link "[show]" which is to the right of the box. This will expand the instructions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, I'm Usedtobecool. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Interracial marriage that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Hi there, Vamlos! It was actually multiple times, not just one. I am dropping you this note so you become officially aware that you need to focus on content and not on other editors. See WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also familiarise yourself with WP:OUTING. Violations of outing can lead to an immediate block. It seems that there isn't even a mild template to warn about this. That's why I am having to write this myself. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I din't know there's so much rule to follow so strongly. I mean I though I was polite and respectful enough. I've talked, commented, chat on mutliple social media sites and forums; youtube, facebook, instagram, twitter and never gotten any of this. I didn't know wikipedia has so much rules to follow strongly. I've read many of the rules and I though I was being civil enough but turned out I'm not civil enough. Okay. I'll be clear and carefully watch my words and sentence. An to make sure that I'm not breaking any wiki rules, as long as I'm focusing on the content and not the editors than everything should be safe right ? Vamlos (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Other sites that you talk about don't really have a goal like we do. On Wikipedia, we can't just shout at people we don't like and move on to something else, knowing that we are hardly ever going to have to converse with them again, let alone work together. Here, we have to work with them no matter how much we disagree with them. That's why we need to maintain the atmosphere conducive to collaboration. Please see the parts of your messages on the Interracial marriage talk page that I have removed and consider how you could have left them out, and focused on the disagreements about content instead. I removed attacks by others that were made against you as well, and editors have been warned likewise. Please be careful also about Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links and WP:LINKLOVE. I am glad that you did not link to any off-site harrassment or doxxing of other editors but you were pretty close. So, please be careful about that too. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Armenia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in any dispute. I'm sorry, I should have added a discussion in talk page.Vamlos (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sexual violence in South Africa, you may be blocked from editing. jp×g 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cited any source. I only added a interpretation based on the already sourced link but I admit I was wrong. I should have went to the talk page first before I decided to add anything else.Vamlos (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Defective user Vamlos continue to act in wikipedia. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bablos939

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Vamlos. My suggestion to you is to move on to other things asap and don't post any more at User talk:Bablos939. I also suggest you self-revert your recent posts as a sign of having good-faith in the unblock process. Bablos939 has been blocked and whether he will end up unblocked is up to adminsitrators. They are quite capable of reviewing Bablos939 behavior and determing whether his account should be unblocked. Everytime you post something like this on his user talk page, you're just creating more WP:DRAMA that others are going to have to sort through. What you're doing isn't going to help settle things down and isn't going to change the fact that Balbos939 has already been indefinitely blocked. Moreover, not only can everything you post there simply be reomved by Bablos939 at anytime per WP:BLANKING, it also might make some administrator reviewing the page decide to take another look at your involvement in things. I understand you might feel the need to defend yourself, but you're not helping resolve things in any way shape or form. If Bablos939 wants to argue WP:NOTTHEM and blame others for his block, then administrators are smart enough to see through all that and will respond accordingly by declinig his unblock requests. If he continues to do such things, an administrator will take away his ability to even edit his own user talk page. There's nothing further for you to do and thus no need to post any more on his user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay. I will remove it. I wasn't so sure if I was allowed to comment but I resisted anyway.

I got response that allowed me to reply so I did http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Can_I_comment_under_a_blocked_user_who_is_asking_that_their_block_be_reviewed_?

Okay I will remove it my defensive reply. The reason I commented is I just really couldn't stand so many misleading accussations made against me by Bablos939 so I wanted to comment to defend myself. I was thinking Bablos939 using mind tricks by exaggerating some things to give me a bad image....the same goes against RoySmith. He only talked from his own point of view but never tell the other parts that is why I wanted to make a defense but okay I understand and will leave all of this to the administrator--Vamlos (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Negrito, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a a explanation in the edit summary and I have also made a discussion on the talk page before I removed anything. Since when on earth was Harappan civilization is related with Negrito that it has to be edited in the Negrito page ? There is 0% evidence of any Negrito skull found.

An edit summary can't be a substitute for talkpage consensus when you've removed 5K of content referenced to dozens of sources. Get consensus first. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the links and it clearly mistinterpreted the genetic study. Mentioning the Harappan civilization in the Negritos wiki page. Do we even need a concensus to remove this ? Is like someone edited Donald Trump is a Indian guy and I'm sure you don't need to concesus to remove that when the source is manipulated, is all commonsense. I read prettymuch everything about Harrapan civilization and have not met a single word saying Negrito. The links genetic study says nothing about Negrito racial/phenotype people nor DNA..... in the Harappan civilization which is today's east Afghanistan, Pakistan, North-West India. It is a extremely bold to try associate Harappan civilization with the Negrito wiki page which is about Negrito people as racial group. The genetic of Adamanese Hunger Gatherers does not mean Negrito or Adamanese but rather indegerious groups that include people from India, Sri Lanka such as Dravidian Speakers, India' Austro-Asiatic, to Austrial aboririgines, and Negrito people but it's edited in the Negrito page to make it seem like it's related racially to these small black looking pygmies population when the genetic study doesn't even mean that.--- Vamlos (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make the argument on the talkpage, addressing the sources specifically. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging on the talkpage - I know it seems tedious to have to make a case, but you're making progress, and it helps to ensure that your changes will stick once everybody's discussed them and they agree. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Not important enough to be in history ?

I do think your additions are useful and belong in the article, all I did was move them from the lead section. I didn't think this was an event of enough prominence in the millennia of Nubian history to belong in the lead section. - SimonP (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chen Tang (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhuang. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Rsk6400. I noticed that you recently removed content from African Americans 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 your 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. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taylour Paige, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zola.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Your edit to Chinese Americans has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Hut 8.5 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Interracial marriage into Eurasian (mixed ancestry). 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur people

Hey Vamlos, I have now corrected the wording. The study (Zhang et al.) talked about autosomal STRs rather than ancestry. I also reincluded the block quotes which you removed without reason. I hope you agree now. We must also remember the 3 revert rule. Better to move this discussion onto the talk page. Please do not remove sourced content but try to edit it without removing. Further edit warring may result in both of us blocked. I will request a third user opinion if you keep reverting it. I hope we can find a solution and agreement. Anyway greetings and have a nice day.46.125.250.11 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I set up a section in the talk page. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Uyghurs#Uyghur_DNA Provide your evidence on Northern Uyghur being 70-90% East Asian and South Uyghurs being 60-80% East Asian. Because in every DNA study they were never higher East Asian than the Kazakh, Kyrgyz who look far more East Asian in every racial, facial, physical aspect. But provide DNA data for us to see. Also explain why you removed Uyghurs are related to other Turkic people in Central Asia and just put them as related to other people in China.Vamlos (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup Q (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balinese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Your edit to Cape Coloureds has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. (from https://sittingbull1845.blogspot.com/2013/06/black-social-history-afro-asian-also.html) ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Proto-Mongoloid. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. The same thing applies to Mongoloid, where you restored content that had been deleted about a year before, creating the false impression that that content had been written by you. See also Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notifications - Gender and Sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not comment on Talk:Bisexuality about your personal views about the sex and gender distinction, intersexuality, and trans people. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So than why was the user 151.18.33.13 allowed to say " Bisexual = attracted to more than one gender (could be two, or three, or four...). Btw those "two" could be "women and agender people" (not necessarily men and women). And another user allowed to say "No, It is NOT. That is PANSEXUALITY". 96.41.128.51.....are they not personal views aswell ? Vamlos (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pansexuality one is also forum talk. The other person at least pointed to a source, though did it in a small rant. That IPs are making comments like this doesn't mean you should as well. That you tried to close a discussion as NOTFORUM while also adding a comment makes it clear you know this already. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I though I could express my opinion but I didn't close a discussion as NOTFORUM. That was done by DanielRigal [2]. I was unaware but now I know.Vamlos (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Comfort women. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You never gave me a warning before and just said that I'm violating wikipedia's Neutral point of view, without explaining or pointing out on which part I'm inserting my own personal analysis. Everything I written is sourced from historical facts of Mark Felton, a famous world war II historian. The source is right here Japan's Gestapo Murder, Mayhem and Torture in Wartime Asia By Mark Felton, 2009. I want to know in which part I'm making my own neutral point of view. Vamlos (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that white women linked up one-to-one as mistresses of Japanese invaders? It's not in the book you cited. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source is in Mark Feltons 2009 book and also in his 2011 book [3] Children of the Camps: Japan's Last Forgotten Victims, By Mark Felton, 2011. This is what it's said at the bottom of the page "Fewer European women were available for work in the brothels, as most of them [Living outside of the internment camps] preferred to establish relationship as mistress to one Japanese man " Vamlos (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, can I restore back my edit ? Vamlos (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book source is quoting another source, but I can't see it. Can you tell me the quoted source? It seems like the source is saying two different things, that European women were hired as maids or house servants of individual Japanese officers, and that they were mistresses for sex to these men. I wonder why they define it two different ways. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's on both of the book source. I directly linked the words in google book link. Just click here [4] it's in the lower section of the first paragraph. It says " In addition, fewer European women were available for work in the brothels, as most of them [Living outside of the internment camps] preferred to establish relationship as mistress to one Japanese man. " I believe because they are rather different to comfort women. These are the interned women from the camps who rather become mistress to one Japanese than serving various imperial Japanese troops like all comfort women do (voluntary or not). Those who became mistress would rather serve that one Japanese man who could be either civilians or more likely elites, rich or higher status males as a way to free and help themselves (and properly helping their own interned family too). It was for their own benefit and their own survival. Vamlos (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay that I can re-edit it ? I was clearly not doing any neutral point of view. Everything I edited was based on historical facts of Mark Felton and forgotten victims of European comfort women.Vamlos (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to find out what is the source being quoted by the book. Because the part you want to cite is a quote of another source. The book cite is footnote number 2 for that chapter, which I cannot see in the Google Books preview. The book author, Mark Felton, did not write the text you wish to add. Felton also does not endorse the quote as true; Felton says this is what the Kempeitai used as a reason to explain its actions. If you find out the source quote, it must be explained as a Kempeitai quote. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last link I showed you show the source is also in Japan's Gestapo Murder, Mayhem and Torture in Wartime Asia. By Mark Felton · 2009. I didn't say Felton endorse the quote but what he cited about the Kempeitai.

What about this source Bart van Poelgeest, Report of a Study of Dutch Government Documents on the Forced Prostitution of Dutch Women in the Dutch East Indies during the Japanese Occupation, Unofficial Translation . 24th January, 1994

https://www.awf.or.jp/pdf/0205.pdf

It basically also said this In addition, (PAGE 8) fewer European women were available for work in the brothels, as most of them [Living outside of the internment camps] preferred to establish relationship as mistress to one Japanese man

(And from PAGE 7 ) These women were sometimes given the choice of working in a Japanese restaurant/brothel or of becoming the mistress of one of the Japanese occupiers. Physical force and intimidation were used and the women's families threatened.

Privately-run brothels, managed by European women, were to be found at a number of locations. European women either lived on the premises, or opportunities were provided - at certain set times or during parties – for Japanese men to meet them.'' " Vamlos (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF from the Asian Women's Fund says that European women who chose to be a mistress to one Japanese officer were doing that because they were forced to choose between working in a brothel where they would be raped by many men or living in a fairly nice home and being raped by one man. It's not fair to say they "preferred" to be a mistress to one man without the context of the other horrible choice. In any case, that PDF doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It says that it is an "unofficial" translation. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll make some changes on how I edit by saying the interned European did not prefer to be mistress to one Japanese officer. I will simply state there was more who wanted to be mistress rather than comfort women or those who rather be mistress as there was definitely mistress with the Japanese officers, elites, or random soldiers. Most likely of course they were fighting for survival. I don't know what they mean exactly by "unofficial" translation but it may not be about it being unreliable. This is a report of study of Dutch government on prostitution.

I think this is very reliable. According to Scottish American K'tut Tantri (Muriel Stuart Walker), born from Scotland of United Kingdom, she was a script writer for Hollywood, but after leaving America, she lived in Indonesia for a new career. She and also lived in Australia. When she lived in Indonesia and was a Indonesian broadcaster for Dutch and British. She was radio broadcaster for the Indonesian Republicans during the Indonesian National Revolution. She said" [5] " Many of the high Japanese officers had acquired white mistresses, most of them Dutch who preferred that kind of life to the concentration camp. Of course this does not mean the women wanted to become mistress but that they rather be more safe to a high ranking officer, elite or to one man, than with many.- Vamlos (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

I have initiated Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones and Draft:Civil life in conflict zones and promote for expansion of the article drafts. Please do help expand the article drafts you find topics interested in.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M175, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hmong and Bruneian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm Iskandar323. Your recent edit(s) to the page Genghis Khan appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The precise wording from Weatherford was provided in the edit comments on 14 October (check it!), and it makes absolutely no mention of "sinicisation". Stop copying and pasting WP:OR back in. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will make a discussion on the Genghis Khan's talk page.Vamlos (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

I'm not going to waste my time and energy arguing with the infinite number of neo-nazi editors trying to push their racist POV or the Wikipedia moderators that enable them so in case you didn't see this deleted message, here you go.

It is an accurate portrait, the origin and context of the painting is thoroughly discussed by Isabelle Charleux, director of researches at CNRS, here: https://www.academia.edu/11721045/Crit%C3%A8res_changeants_d_authenticit%C3%A9_sur_quelques_portraits_anciens_et_modernes_de_Chinggis_Khan_dans_le_monde_mongol

"Malgré la cinquantaine d’années séparant ce portrait de la mort du Khan, la personnalisation des traits est évidente et les sources nous informent du souci de ressemblance qu’avaient les commanditaires. Avec le portrait de Pékin (et sans doute celui de Taipei), on serait donc en présence du plus ancien portrait conservé, réalisé dans un cadre officiel – celui de la cour des Yuan –, et de surcroît, probablement peint par un artiste mongol."

Hope that helps you.

Best regards. 2A02:8440:5113:9542:0:40:3695:9001 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you swearing and spamming a number of time on the other talk page. Anyway, this isn't the right place to discuss this. Do you any social media platform or email we can use to discuss this with ? Vamlos (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach me here if you wish : metalcouch@hotmail.com 2A02:8440:5141:B9A5:B54E:78FF:1060:2195 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've send you a message on your hotmail. Check your inbox. Vamlos (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Racialist slurs at Ainu people. Thank you.-193.107.22.36 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block is a error and misunderstanding. If I offended anyone please accept my apology. I had been given a indefinite block without given any time to explain. I was basically blocked for using the word pseudo-caucasian and mixed breeds in the Ainu edit summary Here. I had zero intention of being racist and getting myself blocked. The Pseudo-Caucasian word had been used in Ainu people wiki page to refer to their appearance for more than half a year. The source is even from a 2015 genetic study that had been edited since 9 June 2021?

"A study published in the scientific journal "Nature" by Jinam et al. 2015, using genome-wide SNP data comparison, found that a noteworthy amount of Ainu carry gene alleles associated with facial features which are commonly found among Europeans but absent from Japanese people and other East Asians, but these alleles are not found in all tested Ainu samples. These alleles are the reason for their pseudo-Caucasian appearance and likely arrived from Paleolithic Siberia.[80]"

Even the word Pseudo-Caucasoid had been used in the Proto-Mongoloid wiki page since [July 2019], for nearly 3 years. The Jomons are ancestors of Ainu

"While the Jōmon are relatively short, and have finely chiseled features, most times double eyelids, much body hair and often wavy hair which resemble pseudo-Caucasoid traits, "

I'm not making this up. I edited in that page since since 14 July and 5 September And by mix breed I mean the definition that had been edited in multiple wikipedia pages since 5 years ago or longer. It's use to to refer to mixed race, multiracial people. I used mix-breed because Ainu are indigenous population but they a mixture of mixture of Japanese, Ainu, Nivkhs. Mix breed is seen in Half-caste and Eurasian_(mixed_ancestry) wiki page

"Half-caste is a term used for individuals of multiracial descent.[1] It is derived from the term caste, which comes from the Latin castus, meaning pure, and the derivative Portuguese and Spanish word casta, meaning race. Terms such as half-caste, caste, quarter-caste and mix-breed were used by colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations.

You can see that in this section of the third paragraph

"In the 1920s to 1940s, several writers raised concerns about an increasing mixed-breed population, born mainly from Muslim Asian "

I follow wikipedia rules and did not do anything wrong

I'm surprised I was misinterpreted like that. I simply used the words that wikipedia had already been edited and defined. Wikipedia allows those words. How would I have know that those were offensive words if they were not removed for such long time. That would be a complete contradiction for wikipedia. I sourced everything I written. It's been a some time since I reverted a users opinion and almost every time it's to those one-day IP user, who comes back with different IP. and even I only reverted once for every 3 days. I used talk page discussion like a sensible user would do. Like recently when I have a dispute a quickly go discus in talk page. [6] [7]

To user 193.107.22.36

He is another single IP user. I don't understand how these single IP users just comes and edit immediately. Every time I revert another single IP users changes it but they all come from the same person. They are clearly not beginners. And they are using multiple accounts to carry out their agenda. Even if User:193.107.22.36 is from Russia (or he used proxy IP address) he is still another same single day edit user, who re-edited the same pictures and similar edit summary.

Changing IP address, using different local computer shops and mobile edit is something anyone can do. One thing they all have in common is their location is in Austria and they are one time user.

(Note: I even have strong evidence on he is. His choices of wiki pages and his change of location matches this Chinese user from Quora pretending to be Turkmen, pretending to be Japanese and Ainu Japanese(also in youtube). He pretends to be multiple ethnicity to gain credibility among others. But I didn't want him to get blocked or exposed him in Quora and even wikipedia because 99% of the things he written I'm okay with and he is doing a good job fighting supremacist. Even it's so corny. It's just his choice of Ainu pictures that are a bit over the top. He is basically using predominant Siberian Natives with some Ainu ancestry while purer Ainu pictures are removed.)

Finally Giving me harsh warning would be the most suitable but instead I got blocked indefinately. Drmies just gave me a full block. If Drmies wanted he could overlook it as accidental wrong choice of words but there wasn't even a single chance for me have a fair reply. Please accept my apology and give me another chance. I will be more careful from now. But reality is Pseudo-Caucasian and mixed breed already come from the same wikipedia pages that others have edited them. I simply used them on my edit summary. Blocking me on this is a complete contradiction.Vamlos (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no appeal here. Stop the conjecture about the race of an IP editor, the justification of outdated racial epithets just because they have Latin roots. If you want your appeal to be taken seriously you need to focus on your own conduct and what you will do to improve. Cabayi (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2022 (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.

Fellow admins, please see this. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to appeal and reverse the block of my account and IP. I now acknowledged that I made mistakes in using words like Pseudo-Caucasian and mixed breed which I didn't know were racial slurs. But please understand the reason for my mistake were accidental, not intentional. Reason I made that mistake is because the word Pseudo-Caucasian had been used in the Ainu people wiki page (here) from half years ago till now. Also for mixed breed.The word had used in the Eurasian ( here) since five years ago till now. So I though it was okay to use them on edit summary. I really had not racist intention. Surely a simple mistake like that can be forgiven ? I had no bad intentions and I'm not a bad person either. Because in all my life I never heard those words were considered racist slurs and certainly we never heard on them as being offensive in mainstream media. I have no history of using offensive/racist words like the F word and other similar strong offensive mainstreams words. I won't use those scientific racist words or other similar words anymore in the edit summary. I simply made a mistake not knowing they were offensive. Please give me another chance to reflect on my mistake. And from now on I will not revert even once and discuss them on the talk page/discussion. Vamlos (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see your conduct as a "simple mistake." The preoccupation with racial purity, the blaming of others for your problems, and the completely unacceptable terminology used with no awareness of its offensiveness are not rectifiable in the short time since you were indefinitely blocked. I will extend the standard offer: if after at least six months from the time you were indefinitely blocked you return with a thoughtful and appropriate unblock request, it will be reviewed by administrators. Until then, you may not edit Wikipedia. No pings, explanations, socking, editing via IP, or other activity, except for basic questions you might have relating to these terms. Should you violate these restrictions, the term of the offer will be reset or revoked. This does not guarantee that you will be unblocked, that will depend on your approach to any request for reinstatement, which, if granted, may come with terms like a topic ban. Until then, I suggest that you do some basic reading concerning racism, discussions of culture relating to race and its discussion, and the ways in which people refer to and discuss race, perceptions of race and their implications. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2022 (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.

- - Addendum Since the reaction by Vamlos was to return to their previous behavior, and to ignore the terms outlined above, the standard offer is revoked. They are indefinitely blocked, and while there is always a possibility that they may receive reconsideration at some future time, they've already forfeited their opportunity for redemption. Acroterion (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the now deleted questions you posed to me: No, you're not wasting your time, and your account isn't done for. But you don't Need a answer quick. You need to take your time and consider what you're typing, how it can be interpreted, and how it can be misinterpreted - especially in areas around racial and gender identity. You need to remember yoiu're writing for an encyclopedia, not for a publication deadline.

If you're going to cite Eurasian (mixed ancestry)#United Kingdom as your source for "mixed breed" be 100% sure that is what it says. It doesn't say that, it says "mixed race" which has less pejorative overtones. I could give you a long, long list of terms for race, gender, sexuality, and disability which were acceptable within the recent past but which are now highly offensive. Relying on old sources, and misquoting them, will do you no good. Cabayi (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: I sincere regret using the wrong choice of words in the edit summary. I will make sure to remember your advice from now on. If I had made any mistake I will write it down in the talk discussion page or see advice on wikipedian expert and ask them before I do something. I will definitely be very careful from now on.

Sorry about the Eurasian (mixed ancestry)#United Kingdom. It was in the third section. Historically the British who colonized Africa and Indian. The British white men who married with African women and Indian women in large numbers were called Mixed breed. The same is true for reverse but in much smaller numbers.

" Following World War I, there were more women than men in Britain,[132]..............[133] In the 1920s to 1940s, several writers raised concerns about an increasing 'mixed-breed' population, born mainly from Muslim Asian. ::And the other idea of mixed breed I learned from the word Half-caste.

"Half-caste is a term used for individuals of multiracial descent.[1].......Terms such as half-caste, caste, quarter-caste and 'mix-breed' were used by colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations"

I will make sure to be extra more careful. Avoid any offensive word. I just need another chance just to show everyone I can do it, please unblock me for a mistake I make which was not intentional but accidental. It was shock to me that I got blocked for this careless mistakes. I really want to be given one more chance show I won't make the same mistakes. If I even make one more similar mistake than there be no excuse for me. This time I'm 100% careful as I now understand even words used in wikipedia are not necessarily acceptable. I just need one more chance. I made a careless blunder and it won't happen again. I also wish someone would reviews my second appeal. Vamlos (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: I really want someone to do my second request for a unblock. I've reflected on my mistakes but now I'm just hoping I get a definite answer.Vamlos (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos, I declined your first unblock request. I don't believe that your request should be assessed by me again. If your second request is declined you need to know that it's not just my interpretation of the situation but the result of an independent second opinion. I'll stand by the advice I gave last time - "If you want your appeal to be taken seriously you need to focus on your own conduct and what you will do to improve." Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vamlos,

Just because you haven't been unblocked immediately doesn't mean that you will never get unblocked. I think you need to be patient. Saying any more on the subject of race or racist language would not be good for you. See Law of holes. You've explained yourself and presented a defense, now you have to wait for an admin to decide whether or not to accept your appeal. Just a gut feeling but I think going into more argument about what has happened will lessen your chances of being unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I waited for more than week, between 8-9 days. My last reply here was 21 January and we are now in 29 January. All I want now is a fair reply to my unblock request. Can I at least know when that will happen. Vamlos (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, @Cabayi:, @Drmies:. I really don't want to waste any more time. I'm fully ready accept any final answer to my unblock request. I feel this account is done for anyway, I just want to know 100% sure If I can use this account anymore. I've listened to Liz, and have been very patient waited for more than 1 week hoping for any slightest reply or response. The fact that I made my second appeal since 19th January and we are now in 30th January. I've waited very patiently. I've seen accounts who got 3 days block and 1 week block and they get answered in 1 or 2 days. While my 2nd appeal had been 11 days, this is basically no different to having 11 days blocks on me. Do I have to come back and check everyday for someone to do my 2nd unblock request. There is no date or any response for long I should wait. I've listened to Cabayi. I do want my appeal to be taken seriously but no one is taking seriously or else I wouldn't need to wait for 11 days. So all this because Drmies decided to full blocked me for using two word, Pseudo-caucasian and mixed breed. Words that I didn't know that were considered offensive ( now I know and I repent and understand). I've seen people who used aggressive language, real mean mainstream words. The F word, N word, B word on purpose and real other racist words BUT In get treated the same ???. All I did was edit words not knowingly known they were offensive and I used only because those words are used by scientist and authors in the very same Ainu people wiki page and others Pseudo-Caucasian had been used in the Ainu people wiki page (here) from half years ago till now. Also for mixed breed. The word had used in the Eurasian wiki page in in the third section ( here) since five years ago till now. Mix breed is also shown in Half-caste. I find it ironic that I can get full block like I was intentionally being racist for the words that wikipedia permits to use in the same pages and words that we almost never hear as being offensive in mainstream media Yes. It's my mistake to use those words and I reflected it but you can't say I don't have evidence that I did in purpose. Please just let me know what the result is from here on.Vamlos (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos, I would like to ask you if you've thought about how phrases like "if I can use this account anymore" sound like to other editors and administrators. And I'm also wondering why you think it would be a good idea to completely misrepresent the words of the administrator who blocked you, and then pinging that same admin to consider your unblock request. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if I can use this account anymore" because is all confusing. You gave me a full block on my account but than you also blocked my IP address for 6 months (which is also a extremely long time). But there is also the 2nd unblock request, meaning my IP and my account could also be unblocked any momment? Liz said be patient and my account could get unblocked but how long do I have to wait. It didn't take one day to do my first unblock request, they done in the matter of hours. But for my 2nd unblock request is 12 days and still no response. I didn't misinterpret. Both of yours blocks on my IP and account were extremely harsh. I wrote Pseudo-Caucasian and Mixed-breed in the edit summary and that's how I got my IP and my account harshly blocked. What else would you Drmies block me for ? I respected wikipedia rules and conducted in respectful behaviour than many wikipedia ditor who still do edit warring. I'm not like that. Just look at 13 January I made one edit and got reverted (check here) I quietly went to discuss it with account user Kansas Bear in here, instead of engaging in editing war (I'm surprised to don't even get block or warning after making 4-5 reverts). And even in the Ainu people wiki page. Look at my edit history. I have reverted once and waited for 3 days each time and they all new IP's (check here). Name me any other reason on why I should receive such harsh blocks. I accept and reflected on my mistakes (for using the word pseudo-caucasian and mixed-breed which are used in wikipedia) and sorry for not knowing they were supposed to be offensive terms. If I could have re-edited the edit summary I would have. Now I just want to get over it.Vamlos (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I waited for more than 2 weeks. Can you do my 2nd unblock appeal or have someone to do it for me ? Please help me out.Vamlos (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do my 2nd unblock appeal

@Marchjuly:, @SimonP:, @Acroterion:, @Liz:. I've waited patiently in the first 10 days, now it 17 days and still nobody does my 2nd request or any response. What is even the point of my 2nd unblock appeal if nobody does anything. The first unblock request didn't take even take more than 2 hours. Nobody from wikipedia can tell me when they will do my 2nd unblock request.

Please. Would anyone do my 2nd unblock request.Vamlos (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it taking so long ? No date, no response. Isn't this against wikipedia rule's of credibility and irresponsibility ?

I can't believe even wikipedia can be so clueless and irresponsible as to keep people in dark for 3 weeks without people accepting a unblock appeal or giving me a date on when the unblock appeal would happen. What is the point of a 2nd unblock appeal if no one accepts it ? Vamlos (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

= Request on my 2nd unblock request.

@Marchjuly:, @SimonP:, @Acroterion:, @Liz:, @Cabayi:, @Drmies:, @Acroterion:, @Liz:, @Cactus.man:, @CactusWriter:, @Callanecc:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Academic Challenger:, @Acalamari:, @Acroterion:, @Admrboltz:, @Deacon of Pndapetzim:, @Deckiller:, @Decltype:, @Deepfriedokra: @Cecropia:, @Cerebellum:, @Chetsford:, @Closedmouth: It's been nearly a month. I want a admin to do my 2nd request or tell me how long I have to wait.Vamlos (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia account had waited long enough without a answer. It shouldn't have to take this long for something so simply, easy to do.

@Cabayi:, @Drmies: @Marchjuly:, @SimonP:, @Acroterion:, @Liz:, @Cabayi:, @Drmies:, @Acroterion:, @Liz:, @Cactus.man:, @CactusWriter:, @Callanecc:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Academic Challenger:, @Acalamari:, @Acroterion:, @Admrboltz:, @Deacon of Pndapetzim:, @Deckiller:, @Decltype:, @Deepfriedokra:@Cecropia:, @Cerebellum:, @Chetsford:, @Closedmouth: For nearly a month I waited. I have no request done for my 2nd. The first one didn't even take a hour but the 2nd is nearly a month long and still nobody did anything. I don't understand what's going on but it's complete mess. There's no rules that tells me what to do next, no admin telling me how long I should wait for my 2nd unblock request. If I have to wait this long I might aswell pretend the 2nd unblock request had been declined. Vamlos (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

@Drmies: No objection to unblocking as I feel they made a mistake due to unfamiliarity with the language which us unlikely be repeated. And, buried in the sub-text is that repetition of the mistake would result in repetition of the blocking. @Vamlos: Not clear on why I was pinge*d? UTRS? You've been blocked less than a month. I understand your impatience, but from our perspective, you have not been blocked very long at all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest WP:SO, in which they would wait six months before asking for an unblock (and before pinging anybody again). That would give them some time to learn appropriate ways of approaching the subject, and maybe to understand the need for patience. Their first unblock request gives me pause, and I think an enforced period of reflection would be valuable. The pinging-every-administrator-they've-ever-interacted-with business has not helped their case. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Deepfriedokra, I do not have as much faith as you, and I'm more inclined to go with User:Acroterion's proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hearing nothing further, I'll close the unblock request with the standard offer. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Reply to Deepfriedokra I've been given a full block by Drmies. It wasn't less than a month.

Edit: Hearing nothing further ???? It hasn't been a full day and you call it a close ? This reminds me exactly of me being blocked before I even had the chance to explain myself in the discussion.

I really don't need listen to any wikipedia admin excuses. I waited for nearly 1 month just to do my 2nd unblock request and nobody told me how long I had to wait. This alone shows even wikipedia admins are irresponsible. Next time learn the difference between mainstream offensive words and old colonial terms . If "Psuedo-Caucasian" and "Mixed breed" were unacceptable terminology than why are they edited in wikipedia main pages ? And it isn't considered offensive in mainstream media and these words had edited in both wikipedia pages. Real offensive terms would be be N words and N Admin Drmies decided to made a exaggerated block. I've seen people who used offensive F words, N words and still didn't get full block on their account. I'm not buying any of these reasons. Vamlos (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've already violated the terms of the standard offer with the above. Accordingly, I'm revoking the offer. The indef stands. You do not get to dictate terms or revert to your previous behavior. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is even the point of your unfair offer and I have to wait 6 months ? According to which Wikipedia rule that using non-offensive colonial terminology leads me to getting full block ? And who defines "Pseudo-Caucasian" and "Mixed breed" are unacceptable terminology. And even if they are unacceptable terminology, why do I deserve a full block and not even one single warning ? I doubt you would ever able to explain it. If could I accept my mistake. But quite simply even you know the block was exaggerated and extremely harsh. Vamlos (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your conduct in edit summaries and your return to the behavior that was evident in your first unblock request, I've removed your access to this talkpage. You will have to use UTRS if you wish to be unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]