User talk:Fq90

January 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Miami, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 02:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Firefangledfeathers 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice[edit]

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.

Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:1RR at Race and intelligence[edit]

Your recent editing history at Race and intelligence 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I strongly suggest that you self-revert before being brought up for possible sanctions at WP:AE. Generalrelative (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history at Race and intelligence 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your edit-warring is likely to result in a report at WP:AE by one of the many editors patrolling this article (not me). Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was the goal to promote the view that racialists are martyrs, that important processes of the scientific method like peer review, testing falsifiable hypotheses and replication should be dropped, so that all opinions be considered equally valid hypotheses, that "academic freedom" should eliminate legitimate criticism? The soapboxing was self-contradictory. This obviously missed the point: "your abhorrence for a racist hypothesis should trump your commitment to academic freedom" the actual problem is discredited interpretations for which better explanations exist that conflict less with a wider understanding and WP reflecting that. Presenting this as "abhorrence for a racist hypothesis" is recasting your involvement as ideological activism... Wikipedia articles not being scientific journals but a tertiary source that should be a summary of reliable secondary ones, this is also irrelevant. It's not the editor's job to submit to "academic freedom", whatever that means... —Paleo Neonate – 07:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruption, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fq90.

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 ~~~~}}. Sro23 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]