User talk:Garethfloydmorgan

NPA

This will be my last warning, next time I will report you.

It does not matter if we have read your work or not, we do not get to judge its veracity, other RS do (you have been told did), you need to follow out policies (you have been told this, already), and yo need to treat other users with respect (see wp:civilty). Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to you, or are you allowed to insult me and threaten me?

Please tell me which policies I am failing to follow by simply asking repeatedly if there is anyone there who is willing to read the paper in order to gauge if the new evidence is significant or not.

If you don't want to answer my simple question just say so. I would happily go to arbitration if it helps.

How about if I just edit the AAT page, correcting all the misinformation? I was trying to be discrete, but I can do that if you prefer. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told why we do not have to read your paper (read wp:or what we think of it is irrelevant). If you go to arbitration (see wp:arbcom, or wp:ani) you will not get to result you want as you have to obey policy. If you edit the AAT page, that will be a violation of COI. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And read wp:soa, and stop attacking other editors. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you want me to read a page that does not exist... Really Steven... Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steven. At last, a relevant link. I note --

"a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them."

My comments have been given zero weight. Nobody has even bothered to read them, just tagged them inappropriately.

"a user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus—this is perfectly acceptable.."

I'm trying to add knowledge in a niche area, because I happen to know more about eccrine reverse osmosis than anyone else. Why is my contribution not acceptable?

"Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers."

I am still bleeding from numerous wounds from a small group of individuals individuals who appear to have a vested interest in defending the misinformation on the Aquatic Ape page and have been reverting edits for many, many years.

I have received 30 emails from you guys in a cencerted attack. Number 31 just came in!

You can stop whenever you like. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another typo, wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk)

I did say I would report you if you continued.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Garethfloydmorgan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Aquatic ape hypothesis, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! jps (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, your interest in getting your paper included on the Aquatic ape hypothesis is understandable, but the goal should be to first get that paper noticed by other heavy-hitters in the biological anthropology epistemic community. After you get sufficient citations from independent experts who, in their sources, identify this paper as worthy of consideration, we can include it in our article. See WP:TERTIARY.

October 2024

You have been blocked for two weeks from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

I have not sent you any emails and will not be responding to yours. Which Wikipedia editors sent you 55 emails and did they arrive through the Wikipedia email facility? If you can show that you have been harassed by a Wikipedia editor, then I will take action against that editor. But there are malicious trolls who watch WP:ANI and sometimes get their kicks by stirring up trouble. Once, one such troll threatened to murder my granddaughter and even figured out where she lived. Fortunately, that was hot air although my son kept a gun close by for a while. So, keep an open mind. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]