User talk:Gencist101

White British are not indigenous

And you won't find an RS saying they are. The original inhabitants were replaces by other populations over thousands of years. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s like saying native Americans are not indigenous Gencist101 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't replace anyone. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andstart using the talk page to avoid a block. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Bored kittycat (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Bored kittycat (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International relations of Scotland

Your recent edits at International relations of Scotland are un-constructive and do not fit with the overall narrative of the article. The article in question is primarily about the conduct and work of the Scottish Government in relation to promoting Scotland overseas and the work it carries out in relation to international affairs and its network. Readers who wish to gain an understanding of the international relations of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a country, they should see Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. There is a stark difference between international and foreign relations. I would encourage you to stop engaging in this type of edit, as your recent warnings going by your talk page are certainly indicating a forthcoming block as a result of your edits. To recap, the article is not about the foreign relations of Scotland as conducted by the UK Government, but rather the international relations conducted by the Scottish Government. The work of the UK Government is not relevant in this context. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Scotland international relations are promoted by the uk government aswell Gencist101 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the whole United Kingdom yes. As mentioned, those wishing to read on the foreign affairs of the United Kingdom should see the relevant article mentioned above. This article is about the work of the Scottish Government alone in representing Scotland internationally and the work, bodies and membership organisations in place that support this. It is not about the UK Government and/or their representation of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom - there is a separate article for that. You are clearly missing the point of the article and can only assume you have not read past the first paragraph. It would appear you are trying to merely assert the fact that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. This is un-constructive and not relevant within the context of this article. Again, please refrain from conducting these types of edits. They will continue to be reverted and challenged. Should you wish to gain consensus, feel free to take it to the talk page. Alternatively, the status quo will continue to stand. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about the international relations of Scotland wich the uk government has a role in and I provide a source I do not see a valid reason for the removal of Gencist101 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The article is about the international relations of Scotland conducted by the Scottish Government. It states that very clearly in the first sentence. I would like to point out you are now in breach of an active edit warnings displayed on the article to not include UK Government in the opening sentence as that is not the narrative of the article. If I were to hazard a guess, you are clearly against any prospect of Scotland and the Scottish Government having any form of separate recognition, as I see you are not particularly interested in adding any mention of the UK Government to International relations of Wales. And, whilst we are at it, please do not begin to do so on that article, as again, like your edits at Scotland, will be reverted. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The international relations of Scotland are literally also done by the uk government you are edit waring by removing a sourced section please stop removing it Gencist101 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, with less than 30 contributions, I will not take any lessons from you on Wikipedia conduct. The only person who is staring and engaging in an edit war here is you. Please do not continue to engage in this type of behaviour or make such edits. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you may wish to appear behind an anonymous IP address like you did with your most recent edit to the article, however, as you will see, it will still be detected and reverted. Stop. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hi Gencist101! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Western hunter-gatherer several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Western hunter-gatherer, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Than you Gencist101 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bored kittycat (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please address ponints made Gencist101 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bored kittycat (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a stockp Gencist101 (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

t

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).

Gencist101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Gencist101 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2025 (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.

I am not a stock puppet what do I do now Gencist101 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]