User talk:IagoHughes

Hello IagoHughes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

April 2022

Hi IagoHughes! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Wales that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please take care not to use potentially deceptive edit summaries particularly using "Minor edit". You were advised yesterday about this.SovalValtos (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Welsh topics

Hi - can I suggest you pause your editing and take a look at why multiple editors are reverting your changes. The edits have multiple problems around accuracy/verifiability/grammar/lack of citations/POV/inadequate edit summaries etc. You’re relatively new to Wikipedia and while it’s great to have enthusiastic new editors, it is worth taking a bit of time to get things right. If you’re thinking about making major changes to articles, it’s often worth discussing them on the article Talkpage first, to see what other editors think. KJP1 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please stop and think. Just reverting editors will just end up with your being banned (see below). KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The above applies to a number of Wales-related articles. Please respect WP:BRD. If you change an article but are reverted, take it to the Talk page rather than reverting. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If you stay here as an editor, you also need to read, and learn from, WP:CS - about how to correctly cite sources. There is a lot of guidance for new editors in the welcome post at the top of this page. I strongly suggest that you learn from it before trying to go much further with your editing. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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#User:IagoHughes_reported_by_User:Ghmyrtle_(Result:_Blocked_for_7_days) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Royal Marines, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Royal Marines, you may be blocked from editing. Loafiewa (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The content I added was sourced from offical parliament and Royal Navy websites, therefore your accusation is false. IagoHughes (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #56832

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to 3 Commando Brigade! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Welsh Revolt. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jr8825 • Talk 00:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi IagoHughes. Generally, you should only revert when necessary, and should use the talk page to discuss first. However, if you are going to undo another editor, you must use an edit summary. If you stop and explain what you're unhappy about, other editors can listen to you and consider your concerns. If you adopt a battleground mentality and revert without bothering to explain what the problem is, you'll end up blocked, and probably for longer than last time. Jr8825 • Talk 00:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Jr8825 • Talk 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's start again?

Hi IagoHuges. An administrator has closed my complaint at the edit warring noticeboard and recommend I instead raise my concerns about your editing at the incident noticeboard instead. However, following your self-revert here, I've decided not to do this for now, and wondered if you'd be prepared to join me and other editors in discussing which sources are reliable, and how we present the legends surrounding Glyndŵr. I've opened a discussion about these issues at the Wales Wikiproject talk page, and it would be good to see you participate there.

That said, as well as your heavy use of reverts, I'm still concerned about your advocacy surrounding Glyndŵr, use of unreliable sources and tendency to present popular legends around Glyndŵr in the article voice, rather than clearly attributed to their source. It's important we prioritise mainstream historians' views. I also ask that you engage with the opinions of other editors and the policies that are shared with you; for example, the lead at Glyndŵr is still clearly too long, which you'd realise if you read the relevant guideline (I linked this on the article talk page). Jr8825 • Talk 18:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Glyndwr.

The lead I expanded on can be downsized but covers the article as a whole because it needed expanding. And as for sourcing the lead doesn't need sources. I will revert and with your cooperation we can downsize critical information for the article. Please work with me and don't start a revert war. Cltjames (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So much for cooperating. Not an issue, others will amend I'm sure. As for the lead, again the source isn't needed in the introduction, besides the reference you added was a dead link. I moved the Glyndwr university sentence to fit in the paragraphs better. Cltjames (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Kingdom of Wales

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Kingdom of Wales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Incorrect namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Move 2/Kingdom of Wales

A tag has been placed on Draft:Move 2/Kingdom of Wales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Incorrect namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Move/Kingdom of Wales

A tag has been placed on Draft:Move/Kingdom of Wales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Incorrect namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Kingdom of Wales

What were you trying to do with Kingdom of Wales? Why did you move it to the Wikipedia and Template namespaces? In the future if you are trying to publish articles seek help in doing so, your moves didn't make any sense. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Those moves were mistakes, I have since moved it to the (article) namespace. IagoHughes (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@IagoHughes with the reasons presented back in December (being an almost exact copy of King of Wales), I've reverted your edits. I'd suggest making a draft with new, not copied content, and submitting that. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The topics “Kingdom of Wales” and “King of Wales” are very similar hence why I included much of the same relevant information as it is compatible to both topics, it is all historical facts with supporting sources. IagoHughes (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is, but and it is almost an exact copy of King of Wales. The content should exist at one page, and not both. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The article “Kingdom of Wales” was about the kingdom itself, whereas the article “King of Wales” was about the title. They are too separate topics and should exist as seperate pages. IagoHughes (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Not if they are exact copies, no. It seems like previous conversations have existed regarding this as well. If you believe it should exist, you can write up a new draft and submit it. Do not revert my edit, or else we will get into edit warring territory. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong but as far as i’m aware it is not against the rules to copy and paste information from one Wikipedia article to another? Unless you can prove otherwise then do don’t keep removing the article, it is historically accurate and sourced too. IagoHughes (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CWW, it shouldn't be done due to copyright attribution reasons. Also, why on earth would we want to have two pages with the same content? It doesn't make sense. They should be merged together. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the information copied a relevant to both page, and WP:CWW states that I can use cooied content if I give credit while editing by stating “Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution.” . IagoHughes (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Which you didn't, but still, there is no reason for the article to exist when it is an exact copy! WP:CWW is intended for small excerpts. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for why the article should exist is because it is about the Kingdom itself, whereas the other article is about the title of its ruler, too different but very similar topics. IagoHughes (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

But it has the same content! To be honest with you I don't fully understand your position here. Instead I'm thinking about taking this to WP:DRN. I'm going to revert the article to its original state before all of this, do not revert it as we will then have a WP:3RR issue. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have given credit for the copied information therefore is not breaking any rules and you have no basis to keep reverting it. IagoHughes (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eejit43: I had this with IagoHughes last month (see this on my talk page) and I think I can what explain what they're trying to do. Medieval Wales was always split between multiple principalities, never a single entity. One of the princes Gruffydd ap Llywelyn established a hegemony of most of Wales for about 7 or 8 years and during those years had the title "King of Wales" attributed to him. One or two other princes claimed the title too from time to time, but the historical reality is that its about use of a title to aid the jockeying for power of the princes. This was what the King of Wales article covers. However, there is a Welsh nationalist POV which wants to establish that an actual "Kingdom of Wales" existed - it wasn't just a title. But it never really existed. In July last year another user moved King of Wales to Kingdom of Wales (creating the page). I moved it back leaving behind Kingdom of Wales as a redirect. Then IagoHughes tried to recreate that renaming "by the back door" so to speak by cutting and pasting the King of Wales article into the Kingdom of Wales redirect. After I reverted him at the beginning of December he's now had another go at it. Hope that clarifies! DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In this case I followed Wikipedia’s guidelines and gave credit to the “King of Wales” page for the copied content, which means I am fully allowed to do so according to Wikipedia itself. The period was short but all of Wales was united as one Kingdom for 8 years, that is a historical fact. I am not a nationalist of any kind, I was just creating an article for a part of Welsh history that is relatively unknown. IagoHughes (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you are not "fully allowed" to do that. The problem is not about giving credit to the other article. The problem is it is pointless to duplicate another article, which is what you did repeatedly. We even have a speedy deletion criteria, WP:A10, for "any recently created article ... that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia article". That's what you did - and just gave it a new name. DeCausa (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried remaking it without completely copying, half or most of it was not copied at all, and for the parts I did copy I changed some of the wording and gave credit in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines, and again it got removed. I don’t understand why, as yes in that case it is absolutely permissible to do according to Wikipedia. It is a page about a historic kingdom, it is sourced and copied information is credited, from my perspective you are opposing it because of your own personal opinions. IagoHughes (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah got it, thanks very much for explaining! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(to clarify, this is replying to @DeCausa) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023(1)

Your recent editing history at Kingdom of Wales 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. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kingdom of Wales 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. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@IagoHughes stop. This needs to be handled properly or you will be reported. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have twice given credit for the copied information that is present in the article, therefore the use of copied information in the article is completely permissible according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines. You are now reverting my edits based on your own opinion and ego rather than any valid reason. IagoHughes (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your actions are being discussed at WP:AN3. Feel free to make comments there. Do note this has nothing to do with my ego, I promise. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have given credit for the copied information used in the article so your reason for reverting the article is no longer valid according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines. So then what is your legitimate reason for continuing to revert the article other than your own opinion? IagoHughes (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:IagoHughes reported by User:Taking Out The Trash (Result: ). Thank you. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Eejit43’s stated reason for reverting my article is due to “copied information”, however I have since twice given credit for the copied information that is present in the article, therefore the use of copied information in the article is completely permissible according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines, therefore his reason for reverting my edits are no longer valid. IagoHughes (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023(2)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Kingdom of Wales) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.   Salvio ^giuliano 08:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have since twice given credit for the copied information that is present in the article, therefore the use of copied information in the article is completely permissible according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines. This should explain that it was not me who was instigating the edit war as my edits were in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines, yet kept being reverted for no stated valid reason. IagoHughes (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, not tell us why it was wrong. Being correct with your edits- if you are- is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

IagoHughes, have you just set up a new account CAR-4102 to make this edit to get around WP:3RR It would be absurdly blatant if it is you. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for block evasion. 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 ~~~~}}.   Salvio ^giuliano 12:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Once this block expires, I'll reinstate the previous partial block. If you evade this block again, you'll be blocked indefinitely. Salvio ^giuliano 12:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ayersclub (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) looks too much like you to be a coincidence. Following up on Salvio's comment, I have made your block indefinite. Favonian (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Jake-Hughes23 - the editing pattern, and approach of this new user suggests to me they are likely another sock. KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's WP:DUCK but I've opened an SPI here yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Jake-Hughes23

For information, User:Jake-Hughes23 has been blocked as a Sockpuppet of this account. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)