User talk:RhymeNero

Notice of Arbitration imposed sanctions on Race and Intelligence articles

This is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Editors engaging in inappropriate behavior in this area may be subject to sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in theWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. RhymeNero (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know a WP:SPI has been filed against you here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I am having to look up on google what sockpuppet even means. RhymeNero (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Sarah Gore wedding.jpeg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Gore wedding.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sarah Gore wedding.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Sarah Gore wedding.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:AndyTheGrump. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Abuse of editing privileges? Could I have more information please? Seems more like a successful attempt at kicking a person with a different opinion out by a bunch of leftist idiots with an agenda who've been following my every move and painting them all as having some evil motive. And I find it strange that I'd get blocked indefinitely on the first go on a whim basically. You'd think I'd get some warning from wikipedia that I was doing something wrong. I've also been accused of being a sock puppet, there's no evidence of that no doubt, and surely nobody gets blocked indefinitely on the first go for the 3RR rule or whatever when they don't even know about it. The mod in this case was just ignorant enough to listen to the same editors who've been hounding me solely because I wrote things on one page that they didn't agree with.

Decline reason:

The block looks sensible to me given the evidence at WP:ANI#User:RhymeNero. Moreover, your unblock request violates WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Well there’s no real explanation as to exactly what I've done that got me blocked, it seems an arbitrary process. Sure I have a slant in that I don't believe race is a social construct but there exist many scientists with the same viewpoint, so how does that disqualify me from being a contributor? I've been called a 'Nazi apologist' but there's no evidence of me saying anything that's remotely pro nazi (or pro racism for that matter). The thought that I have a battleground mentality is completely off, no doubt I'd have a battleground mentality if people were to delete my queries off talk pages for example on the talk page here Eastern Front (World War II). Perhaps a block may have been appropriate for some of my stupid behavior but indefinite seems harsh under the circumstances. If I hadn't been assaulted by Andythegrump there's much evidence that I'd been a good contributor. All I ask is a chance that I have not been given. If I done wrong give me a temporary block so I can amend my ways. A one off indefinite block seems unfair to me in light of the view that I'm new here and have not been treated with any degree of respect by some of the people here. RhymeNero (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were battling to remove properly sourced information on human genetic diversity, arguing that there exist subspecies of humans today, pushing the POV that Jews were responsible for starting WWII, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a Marxist? And you don't think there's a hint of either anti-semitism or Nazi apologetics in that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2012 (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.