User talk:Frozenranger

Hello, Frozenranger, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

If you are unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, please do read it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, also my comments are neutral. We cannot treat people as some unit of color, thus I believe your giving undue weight to race. @EvergreenFir:

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

El_C 20:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Death of George Floyd

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks from certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing. Please note that further violations to article talk page guidelines is likely to see you restricted from that (and any other) talk page(s), as well. Please take the time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that you may remain in compliance of these. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:20, 28 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi @El C:, I sent you an email regarding this. I also see that you have locked the disscussion regarding the topic which I feel is the right thing to do. Thank you, have a good one Frozenranger (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. You have not come close to addressing the reason for your block. You would do well to deal with your own editing and desist from accusing others. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

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.

Frozenranger, that is not a proper unblock request, so it's likelihood of being granted approaches zero at this time. As for your email, I would prefer, in this instance, to keep matters on-wiki and on the record. Privacy prevents me from responding to your email note here, so please re/phrase your concerns in a manner which you deem fit for sharing on-wiki. Thank you. El_C 20:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: ok no problem. I believe I fall under this category: "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead" As per my email:

Dear El C, Sorry to bother you, I feel that Drmies and EvergreenFir are inappropriately using their adminstrative power to have you ban me. All I wanted to do was have an informed discussion of why including / not including race would create the best article possible. If you have seen their comments they appear to be coming from an emotional state. I to confess that some of my comments were coming from an emotional state. If possible I would like you to remind them to be professional, and I will do my best to stay professional. Also I think by including white in the lead, the editors are falling into the texas sharp shooter fallacy by cherry picking facts. I have no problem including those facts later in the article. I think that by having them in the lead we are playing a narrative that doesn't support the values of wikipedia.

I hope that this shows that my intent was never to harrass people or make inappropriate comments or damage wikipedia in any way, I did not fully understand how to comment in the talk page regarding editoral changes. I see that the consenus is to include race and that will be the end of it.

thanks for your time Frozenranger (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frozenranger, on Wikipedia, "adminstrative power" equates to administrative action, which neither of these admins used in this dispute (that, indeed, would be a problem). The only one who used an admin action in this dispute has been myself. Admins are entitled to engage in normal editorial collaboration, including discussion. If they have contravened talk page guidelines, as you claim, the onus is on you to substantiate that using evidence in the form of diffs. As for due weight regarding "white," that seem to have been established in the subsection which listed many sources making widespread use of that mention. Again, the "values of Wikipedia" is to mirror what reliable sources say. Other considerations are just not relevant to anything. El_C 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]