User talk:Future2023Living

Welcome!

Hello, Future2023Living!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Infodog1213879821 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No i didn't. THis is false

Hrdlicka, Ales (2013-07-27). Melanesians and Australians and the Peopling of America: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, V94, No. 11. Literary Licensing, LLC. ISBN 978-1-258-77421-9. Future2023Living (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source explicitly mentions the transpacific migration ocean theory. Future2023Living (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Peopling of the Americas. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Please read the policy at WP:Vandalism, and in particular the definition of what is and is not vandalism. Be very careful about accusing established editors of vandalsim. Donald Albury 17:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing

Hrdlicka, Ales (2013-07-27). Melanesians and Australians and the Peopling of America: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, V94, No. 11. Literary Licensing, LLC. ISBN 978-1-258-77421-9.

They falsely accused me of Original research when I wrote a theory that goes back to 1935 (republished in 2013) Future2023Living (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This non-original writing written in 1936 proposing explicitly on its own (not me) transpacific migration over the ocean. Future2023Living (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI

The users name is "Austronesier" which sounds like Australia where the main demographic is British europeans

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."Other relationships meaning "the relationship one has with their own ethnic group"

THe talk page conversation

those who advocate for the deletion of my article are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/ Why? Because they are probably exhibiting an ethnic conflict of interest as they are ancestrally from europe with a conquered background relating to CHinese/Korean/Mongols/ect. They don't want the page updated with true information from Nature and other journals because they like being thinking falsely that by conquering the americas, they conquered their rivals from East Asia. However the truth of the matter is these editors advocating for deletion of my edit were out conquered through time quantitatively more by these east asian peoples and thus want to faslely think that the genetics of south america are primarily east asian in origin rather than what the hard science is sayign which its from Australasia. So there is a major ethnic conflict of interest and you should see all my sources in the addition pointed to a third route namely the transpacific by ocean kon-tiki style route and this is the common sense interpretation of multiple genetic studies that I sourced like the on from nature and it's not even original research cause those who are saying otherwise above are simply cherrypicking out of studies from other european ancestral people who also aren't saying the obvious conclusion but even then you cherry picked from those sources when the overall you can find in the sources.There isn't original research cause you cherry picked from source material when in fact the entire sources if you look at all the sources I added implied or explicitly mentioned the transpacific route as a third route Future2023Living (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your comments above appear to be a personal attack on another user. I advise you to remove those comments and to apologize to User:Austronesier. Donald Albury 17:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury: I think an apology to User:Moxy is even more in place here because of this. –Austronesier (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nice try. Did you even read all I wrote and all the sources and understand it and acknowledge COI. No. Future2023Living (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think you are saying

"if you point out a legitimate conflict of interest, I will accuse you of making a personal attack on me and not address the real underlying issues namely the conflict of interest itself, the fact that sound sources were given and yet the page is being vandalized. If you continue to point out the conflict of interest and continue on the track you are on, I will continue saying you are doing a 'personal attack' on an established editor when in fact you have true points about legitimate conflicts of interests" Future2023Living (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"if you point out a legitimate conflict of interest, I will accuse you of making a personal attack and not address the real underlying issues namely the conflict of interest itself, the fact that sound sources were given and yet the page is being vandalized. If you continue to point out the conflict of interest and continue on the track you are on, I will continue saying you are doing a 'personal attack' on an established editor when in fact you have true points about legitimate conflicts of interests" Future2023Living (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are in fact projecting wikipedia violations of vandalizers, people with COI, when in fact sound sources have been given in support of the improved article with info on Australasian genetics that was not present as well as theories from the 1930s Future2023Living (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these 1930s theories were absent from the article and clearly my revisions are an improvement

If you have to ask "what's really happening here?"

The answer is exactly what I said

"a bunch of COI editors seeing a well sourced improvement, threatening ethnic interests, teaming up to hopefully pretend falsely i was in against wikipedia policy when it was in fact them." Future2023Living (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If content, including sources, which you have added to an article is removed, the best course is not to edit war by reverting, but to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Please see the essay at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which contains advice that is widely respected by Wikipedia editors. You will not win any disputes on Wikipedia by attacking other editors. We value consensus, civility, and collaboration. Failure to adhere to our policies and guidelines can lead to you being banned from editing. I advise you to take a couple of days off, and to not be so confrontational when you do return to editing. Donald Albury 18:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THere was no edit war I added a new line in to address your false OR concerns Future2023Living (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Peopling of the Americas 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAH nice way to not address teh COI and vandalism

Why don't you address any of my points?

Youc annot

so i'm right a bunch of COI editors got together and ganged up.

You are edit warring

You cannot

your argument is terrible Future2023Living (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Address the COi

Address the vandalism

Address the sound sources

You cannot Future2023Living (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a bunch of established editors with COI have established a consensus that "1+1=3" . okay Future2023Living (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled Future2023Living (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Austronesier. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your false thinking essentially is any time ever on wikipedia someone were to point out a conflict of interest, that would necessarily be a personal attack. Future2023Living (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your thinking goes like

SUppose there was an editor who was editing lies into articles for commercial intersts being paid to.

I launch a COI accusation at that editor.

A bunch of people team up in support and say that I am "personally attacking" that editor

THis is basically in essence what is happening now but in regards to Austronesier and Moxy who make COI edits and vandalism of sound sourced, well written edits of "people of the americas" due to ethnic COIs Future2023Living (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Future2023Living I doubt you will be unblocked, but your understanding of COI is very different from the way Wikipedia uses it. Fe we welcome published experts in a topic, we don’t tell them they can’t edit. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 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).

Future2023Living (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked due to pointing out Moxy's conflict interest of edit which was nonsensical and if you read the history of "talk" on "peopling of americas" you will see the disingenuous nature of Moxy's edit which was truly for COI reasons not the stated reasons.

Decline reason:

Since you think that your actions were appropriate, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 16 September 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.

{{unblock}}