User talk:Tarantaloid

Duplicated talk page comment

We saw your talk page comment, it is under the hat where it belongs. Kindly stop adding duplicate talk page comments. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Race (human categorization) are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Please note that discretionary sanctions include talk pages. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Doug Weller has now asked you twice to stay off their talkpage. If you post there again, I'll block you for harassment. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. BusterD (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Entirely spurious accusation. This edit[1] is very obviously intended to improve the article, by bringing it inline with the POV found in academia, and not the POV of the clique of editors that own the article, with everyone else being banned for dishonest reasons. And there is nothing wrong with me questioning a ban made by your respected admin, who I would note has a strong POV in the area, which was not satisfactorily answered. I must object most strongly to this egregious abuse of admin tools and violation of Wikipedia's core policies. My comment could not have been *more* productive. A review of the literature including the highest quality sources. Of course due to the well documented degeneration of this project due to left wing activism I do not expect my account to be unbanned, because it is inline with the POV of academia, not Wikipedia editors who ban everyone who disagrees with their personal POV using excellent sources. Tarantaloid (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Because one out of the sixteen of the user's edits might arguably be considered constructive, I'm reducing the length of the block from indefinite to three months. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. BusterD (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks that's better than I expected. What will happen after three months of course is I'll put back my analysis of the relevant literature, and the same group of left wing activists will tag team remove it with the lie that it's a "forum post" (which they have just done) rather than a review of excellent sources they suppress to maintain their "fringe" lie, and I'll be banned again for "disruption". And the so called admins will do nothing about that. But thanks anyway. Tarantaloid (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given this response, I've extended this block back to indefinite. You're welcome. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:11, 18 November 2024 (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.

Tarantaloid (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts

Pretty funny though Doug Weller collapsed a comment because it was a "forum post" with "no sources" and I post almost entirely sources, and this is also a "forum post". Of course "forum post" actually just means disagreeing with the charlatans that guard the page. Tarantaloid (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: If you continue to use your access to editing this page for making personal attacks on other editors (e.g. "charlatans" and assumptions of bad faith), that access will be removed for the duration of your block. Bishonen | tålk 14:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

There's no assumption here. This[2] is the diametric opposite of a forum post. May I suggest you refresh your familiarity with WP:FORUM? Please compare what is written there with what I wrote. Could I possibly be mistaken they are acting in bad faith? There is no possibility they are acting in good faith, they are simply transparently lying. And if you support them, so are you. Tarantaloid (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why single me out? User:Grayfell reverted saying " WP:NOTFORUM. Cherry-picked WP:OR. Quotes so long they are bordering on WP:COPYVIO. Jerry Coyne? Really?" Others did also. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a "respected administrator" so your participation in this egregious mob behavior is especially concerning. Tarantaloid (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]