User talk:Riverlisp

Welcome!

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

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Acroterion. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mulatto without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mulatto 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Is This Where I Respond to the BLOCK??? I disagree with the block. I DID put a reason in for making the change RE: "That 'Mulatto' is now considered derogatory" as its claim of being derogatory is only supported by the and with the use of various dictionary references to support the claim that 'Mulatto' is derogatory. I was not aware of 'edit wars.' Dictionary definitions of words are ipso facto BIASED and culturally and corporate determined definitions. Furthermore, I also supplied the premier Indigenous Scholar's work, 'The evolution of language and race,' by Jack D. Forbes, as a reference to challenge and remove phrases that claim 'Mulatto is derogatory and related to 'Mules.' I question the administrator's right to be the editor of this page, namely, that only a well trained anthropologist of expert in cultural studies should be able to be the administrator of this page, not an 'architect.' Be that as it may, Wikipedia, and its editor acting on behalf of Wikipedia, and who has blocked me and prevented me from making important changes to the 'Mulatto' page, and by thus doing so, and denying the scholarly supported challenge I have made, re: that 'Mulatto' was never in fact a derogatory term, i.e., like a racist term such as the brutal 'N' word, etc., or that challenging the Mulatto word as related to the disparaging 'Mule' term, are thereby contributing to a first stage in what is called 'Ethnic Cleansing' and 'Social Cleansing' of a self aware people through the use of media and the dissemination of information that will 'Paper Genocide' the use of the term 'Mulatto' among a distinct citizenry who commonly use it, as it, the insistence on the 'Mulatto' page by various administrators that "Derogatory" and "Mule" be included on said page, even though it is incorrect, contribute to denying a people's right to self determination, namely, to feel that the name for which they are referred, is somehow 'lesser' or 'animalistic' 'dirty' 'derogatory' etc. I did try to show as best I was able, and as respectfully as possible, with academic sources supplied, that it is a modern myth that 'Mulatto' is derogatory, that the word is in fact slated for 'social engineering' in order to have it 'fade away,' in popular usage, thus destroying a legitimate and descriptive term used to describe a distinct, Mestizo/Metis/Mulatto/Mestico/Zambo etc. culture and people.[reply]

Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I will be launching an official written complaint to the highest authority at Wikipedia against the continued insistence and intolerance of the administrators who are protecting said information on the 'Mulatto' Wikipedia page.

Namely, those phrases which are aggressively protected by said administrators, and which I respectfully challenged, phrases which attempt to make in the reader's mind of the 'Mulatto' Wikipedia page, the direct connection, (without adequate LEGITIMATE, multi-sourced, extensive SCHOLARLY references,) between a 600 year old term, "Mulatto," with it as being derogatory and that said 'Mulatto' people who are 'Mulatto' are only like that of 'mules.'

In my first Wikipedia edit, I gave specific reference to the fact that 'Mulatto' as 'derogatory' term is highly debatable, and even left in the claim that 'Mulatto' was derogatory, but supplied a reasoned and legitimate scholarly reference immediately next to the claim that 'Mulatto' was derogatory, and that my reference challenging the derogatory claim was well and thoroughly researched by the Academic I quoted/referenced.

Again, Mulatto has had many real and legitimate meanings over the evolution of its usage, but ultimately was only in fact ever a term only used to mean and to describe a "metissage" people (who were still distinct culturally) under various social conditions and stations, and who have historically resided in various parts of the world over many centuries. "Mulatto" was and has never been implicitly a word used to 'denigrate' a people...it was never 'Derogatory' or related to equating human beings with 'Mules.' Riverlisp (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto

Your personal opinion isn't a sufficient basis for removal of sourced material. Please read WP:RS. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And returning to edit-war to insert your opinion means you're blocked. Use the talkpage once the block expires to establish consensus for your changes before they're made. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for your behavior, not for content:

Removal of sourced content
Edit-warring to do so
Ignoring warnings concerning your behavior

Whether or not the etymology in the article is correct is not the matter at issue, and is not my concern. You might be right, but Wikipedia's role is to summarize what has been written elsewhere about the subject, reflecting prevalent academic consensus. You are expected to provide sources that indicate what you assert - that a particular etymology is deprecated in academic scholarship. Likewise, you'll need strong sourcing to support your unsourced assertion-by-removal that "mulatto" isn't generally seen as pejorative. You haven't provided any. You are expected to gain consensus for your changes on the article talkpage before making changes, once your edits have been contested by other editors, not to edit-war or to evade the block on your account to continue the disruptive behavior. Please read the policy on reliable sources, the verifiability policy, the policy on edit-warring, and the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. Righting great wrongs may also be of interest. The burden of proof is on you, the editor who initiated the changes. Your first stop when your block expires must be Talk:Mulatto, and you will be expected to wait for discussion. A return to edit-warring in the article will result in a longer block. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion noted [1]. The IP is blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]