User talk:Kewlkha

June 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have made PoV edits to Black Sun (symbol) and List of fatwas, added unsourced information to Bhutan and Bob Semple, and deleted sourced information without adequate explanation from Nolan Chart. If you make any more disruptive edits you are likely to be blocked from editing without warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i did nothing wrong. you make bad warning.

also, look at the nolan chart page. it was totally not making any sense whatsoever. dude was just publishing his own opinions

you are very unfair and probably just sad i edited your bad edits

If the above is an example of your command of English, and your understanding of how Wikipedia works, you shouldn't be editing here in the first place. Your English is atrocious. Please confine yourself to edting the Wikipedia of your native language, which appears to be Russian. If so, edit ru.wiki, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you like nolan chart page? it is atrocious. did you read it? look at how crazy it is. maybe my edit not good, but it better ten how it is now. if you edit it to be better then i wont complain.

Welcome!

Hello, Kewlkha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Italian invasion of Libya. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hi Kewlkha! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mongoloid 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.

I thought this is minor edit? it only one word. i just try and remove bias

--Renat 21:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mongoloid. Drevolt (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Beretta 93R, you may be blocked from editing. Loafiewa (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why you say this bad edit. this si correct edit. go look at game, i tell truth. you just try make trouble no reason.

October 2021

Putting aside anything else, your English is not good enough to edit Wikipedia. If you persist, you risk being blocked, as you've been warned many times in the past.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

do not insult me bbb23. my English is excellent, my edits are great, and you should not vandalize my edits or my talk page -kewlkha

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Mongoloid. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you've removed the same material before, and as you've now had 4 editors tell you it was sourced, I'm concerned about your competence to edit. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you confuse me. i dont remember removing same thing twice.Kewlkha (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same text, bit the same attempt to remove anything suggesting a biological concept of race is outdated. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is the concept of dog breed outdated? no. neither is human breed concept outdated. i correct error.

False equivalence (all extant humans are Homo sapiens). —Paleo Neonate – 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

its an analogy not an equivalence... Kewlkha (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it's outdated racist science by people who talked about half-breeds, mongrels, etc and saw some people as sub-human. It's hard for me not to see you as agreeing with it. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

science is not racist. science is just observation. if you are offended by observations about reality, you should change your viewpoint.

I did not make any defense of calling people mongrel, half breed, etc. All I did was delete an unsourced claim that biological race is an 'outdated' concept. Whether or not race is a useful concept within biology is a hotly debated topic; I would prefer if Wikipedia would reflect this disagreement rather then just come down on the side of whatever the opinion of the editor happens to be.Kewlkha (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as multiple experienced editors told you. IT WAS SOURCED. Aren't you read replies to your posts? And bad science isn't science. You did in fact defend your use of the word breed, why are you denying that? Doug Weller talk 06:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i said the word breed, not half breed. its funny you try to obfuscate what I said, when it is right there. it was not sourced within the article. even if it was, it is problematic for the article to say that "this is the case" rather then "this is the consensus" or "this is one of the sides" because the issue is hotly contested within science and society. trying to accuse me of boogey-man dieas does not change this fact. Kewlkha (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You we're talking about dog breeds. Half-breed, cross-breed, they mean the same thing. It still sounds like old fashioned racism to use the word. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean offense in what I said. all i did was compare dog breeds to human races, saying "human breeds." I did not say half breed or cross breed. I did not say any breed was better. I recognize some dog breeds are much more different from eachother then any difference between human breeds, but I think the analogy still fits, because there are uncontroversial differences between the races: skin color, bone structure, some muscle structure, etc. which are enough to say they are different breeds. This is leaving out the highly controversial claims by some scientists of differences in brain (do not take me as saying I have a side in that argument). Kewlkha (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote our article on race, " Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][3][4]" The idea of "different breeds" is to me disgusting. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of "different breeds" is to me disgusting. yes the terminology even has connotations of eugenism (i.e. unethical and pseudoscientific breeding programs to "purify"), or that there are biological subspecies of humans today (the few ones that were distant enough to be considered as such are long extinct)... —Paleo Neonate – 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the difference between a planet and an exoplanet is a social construct. the border between Mexico and America is a social construct. but these things are real. the same for race: yes, it is partially a social construct, but there is a real element to it.

whether or not the races are different enough to constitute sub species is debatable. it depends on what characteristics people can agree are different between the races, and then there is debate about how different they have to be to be sub-species. but "sub-species" is also a social construct, dependent on how we define it. wikipedia articles should reflect that this is not a black-and-white issue (excuse the pun)

the most social construct part of race is where the boundaries between the different groups are. it is similar to adding more and more white to gray paint; at what point does the paint stop being gray? it is up to debate. but it is not up to debate that black and white are different paint colors (you should see the analogy to racial groups easily).

you seem to be coming at this with a lot of baggage, and accusing me off things you imagine I support. Merely recognizing racial differences does not mean I believe in eugenic policies. recognizing racial differences does not mean I want to discriminate against any race. however, i am not going to let my feelings on this matter make me have clouded vision as i look at it: just because I think direct eugenic policies like sterilization of unfit people is bad (do not take me as saying any particular race is unfit), does not mean I cant look at the science that justifies these policies and say it is sound. Kewlkha (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A lot of baggage". Seriously? Everyone has baggage concerning racism. You might want to read [1][2][3][4]. And yes, I have baggage. I grew up in America during the Civil Rights Movement. I marched with King at Selma. You may know about all the lynchings that took place during that period. You probably don't know that despite efforts to pass one, lynching is still not a Federal hate crime - only because of racism at the highest level. Open racism has become much more acceptable in the last decade in the US as you must know. So yeah, I have baggage about racism. I hate it but recognise it's ingrained in all of us and those who don't support it need to continually fight it. Interesting book here I like this quote "Racism is real because we enact it. But the appeal to science to strengthen racist ideologies is on the rise - and increasingly part of the public discourse on politics, migration, education, sport and intelligence. Stereotypes and myths about race are expressed not just by overt racists, but also by well-intentioned people whose experience and cultural baggage steer them towards views that are not supported by the modern study of human genetics." Seeing different color shades, hair, etc as defining a race is a real thing but doesn't make races real. You may feel that you aren't racist but as I said, everyone is, and your use of the word "breed" at least shows a lack of sensitivity to the reality of racism. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in other words, my using a neutral word hurt your feelings. Kewlkha (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what matters is: what reliable sources support your terminology and arguments? While user talk pages are allowed more freedom than article talk pages, WP is not a discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM). The closest available may possibly be WP:RD/S.. —Paleo Neonate – 21:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i thought i am being interrogated by moderator who try to ban me. if i know he not moderator then i wouldnt talk to him.Kewlkha (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

—Paleo Neonate – 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know what that meansKewlkha (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1053120273 —Paleo Neonate – 01:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]