User talk:ETDS554

Welcome!

Hi ETDS554, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Ask questions at the Teahouse or my talk. On talk pages, remember to sign your messages by typing a space then four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. That automatically inserts your user name and the date. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm Fragrant Peony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, California Institute of Technology, 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. Fragrant Peony (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, I thought the comment was too obvious to provide a reference since the University of California system is public and the article already stated that Caltech is a private university. A cursory check yielded no reliable sources for it, but it seems to me that it falls under WP:SYNTHNOT, SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal. ETDS554 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;

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.

Generalrelative (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Fq90 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fq90. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:05, 30 January 2023 (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).

ETDS554 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not know who FQ90 is and I do not care, my concern is that the article on race and intelligence is outdated. My colleague told me she wanted to edit it but was blocked from doing so as well ETDS554 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A simple denial is insufficient grounds for an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2023 (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.

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).

ETDS554 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a white supremacist long-term abuser, I am a scientist, I can show you my biochem diploma as proof, if you tell me where to upload it ETDS554 (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As a scientist, if you are, you should know that that would not prove anything. Anybody can upload anything and share it with us; it cannot prove or disprove who was on the other end of the connection. It isn't falsifiable. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2023 (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.