User talk:Dark Flow

About the banners on my talk page and Feminism: Feminist do not love women but gender, and want to make believe that gender should be more important than fairness and equal chances for everyone regardless of gender.

Wikipedia is used to propagate Newspeak as well ! Men, I wish I could make out of "freezing" some $284 billion an article about the wrong usage of the word default [2022_Russian_debt_default], no comedian could have invented such a stupid joke !

Who else does feel like there should be a best of XKCD list on Wikipedia ?

Would love to make fun here of a specie that believes that the universe was created for it, all while consuming according to the planetary boundaries more resources than could be sustainable. Sacrificing it's environment for illusions of infinite economic growth, and unlimited reproduction. A specie that greedy it can't stop global warming. All while even the word overpopulation is considered wrong, in times where artificial selection or social Darwinism made millions homeless, uncountable people starving, and in which the number of conflicts are increasing almost everywhere.

Darwin should have said: "only stupid species have more offspring than could survive" , than he would at least somehow seem to be good.

I am still astonished by people who want to play natural selection and social Darwinism, people who ignore the uniqueness of every human being and ignore that humans are changing ! Was it not Darwin himself who was the first to notice that quote evolution is "random" ? Despite he couldn't prove mutations as the cousin of brave new world Huxley did.

How does it happen that sexual selection is ignored, despite it is at least as important as natural selection ?

That is why I had invented the word "intelligent selection", to remember that significant differences exist between the evolution of homo sapiens, and primates, even if those who make "Darwinist" propaganda usually ignore that !

Important notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Generalrelative (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody wants to remark that Einstein was not guessing formulae, there was a reasoning that is unique . There was little try and fail involved . I guess he had less cognitive biases than most naturally have ... etc.

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 13:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S Philbrick, I am sorry very likely my fault, but than most of my edits on this article are such a violation and not just that one. I thought despite some copyright somewhere this was in the public domain because "open-

sourced among the participating central banks", and because the BIS is in public interest. I didn't find any authors other than the BIS, but I don't care there are plenty of newspapers copying the text the BIS wrote, so it doesn't make a difference for me. Dark Flow (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work,

I hope you don't mind if I add the links or href them in the see also segment ? I really don't understand the purpose copyrights, I am not just pretending to...

I just understand copyright as incentive for R&D , but in that case it doesn't make sense.

I read https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking and I think it is legal. Am I wrong with this ? Dark Flow (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]