User talk:SteveCree2

Welcome!

Hi SteveCree2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Enduring Value (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The Death of Henry Jemmott moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Death of Henry Jemmott, is not suitable as written to remain published. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Death of Henry Jemmott (July 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Death of Henry Jemmott and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Death of Henry Jemmott, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SteveCree2! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

Doug Weller talk 15:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Flynn (academic). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@generalrelative No editors other than you feel that it is not uncontroversial for James Flynn to have argued that black parenting is inferior to white. Moreover, you have taken two words out of a quotation to make it inaccurate. This warning is entirely out of order and reflects only your personal opinion. Please read my comments at the talk page and reply. SteveCree2 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Important notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Generalrelative (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this @generalrelative. SteveCree2 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 48h for edit-warring at James Flynn (academic) and personal attacks. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, SteveCree2, you do need charity. The charity of being reminded how to conduct yourself professionally, in a manner befitting a collaborative project. Which is the only way you'd be able to effect the changes you wish to see on any given page. Now I'll fuck off. El_C 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C. Go and take a look at that Talk page now, mate. See how people have removed James Flynn's comments about black parenting and cultural inferiority as decontextualised, out of date, an unfair summary of his views. In fact, he wrote several books explicitly on the subject. Much of the the 2018 interview (on perhaps the most famous psychology podcast) cited (and now removed) is about these very views and he confirms them at length in the interview. He confirms that he was finding it hard to have his latest book published because it contained these very views. The James Flynn article is, quite literally, whitewashing of the very worst order. If a collaborative project leads to falsity and whitewashing then its not only unprofessional, it's worse than worthless. You really do need to think it through. Go and ask people not editing Wikipedia, and maybe not white, for their views. SteveCree2 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

SteveCree2, it may well be a whitewashed piece. That would not surprise me. And if so, it's far from the only one. Countering systemic bias is a perennial problem on the project. But this is the thing: I gotta pace myself, and I learned long ago that engaging too much with users who approach Wikipedia's challenging learning curve in a Dunning–Kruger sort of way, rarely gets anywhere or advances anything. I will give you a piece of advise, then. On Wikipedia, usually the best sources win the day. But, if those sources are not compiled intelligibly and summarized concisely, the overall effort will often just get drowned out by the excess verbiage. And it'll be doubly drowned if there's significant vitriol accompanying any part of that process. In fact, almost always, the more vitriol there is, the more it will become the centrepiece of the dispute instead of the underlying contested content in question. I realize this may be difficult to immediately grasp without a wider lens, but it is what it is. El_C 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You may not want my advice and I totally understand if you don't. You can choose to read this or not. I started out on Wikipedia trying to update some articles on my ancestors. I admit I came here for one reason, initially. I originally joined the Cherokee Wikipedia. I made a few edits but then joined the English Wikipedia. After updating the articles I wanted to I found myself not knowing what to do. I have been fighting all my life. I am a warrior, no doubt about that. I could have given up dozens of times but I love life and I love experiencing it so I fight. I brought that here. It started when a series of articles on the Lakota started popping up at AfD. Warrior mode kicked in and I fought even becoming uncivil for which I had to apologize later. After that I saw what I would call severe bias in all the different SNG's and the way editors and admins tended to keep what they like and tried to discard the rest. What had happened is I lost sight of the one precious thing I could hold on to as the results of all of my hardships in life. I understand people. I hear their unique songs and I can relate to them. It had become more about fighting a system I felt was significantly biased than it was about fostering collaboration. I threw myself into contentious situations. My uncivil actions never pushed over the line because I still believed in the line but it was damaging to those individuals I came into contact with. That is not me. I am damaged, not defeated and not defined as a victim, but working to heal and in the process I help heal others through knowledge and understanding. The world is sick, we all know it. We are all doctors and we are either pushing poison or pushing medicine. In regards to Wikipedia, we are here to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative way. The way we tackle what we perceive as biased content or biased behavior must go through the same guidelines and principles as everything else. We must assume good faith. We must remain civil at all times (this includes but is not limited to personal attacks). We must remember that Wikipedia is a free content project. Not gratis but libre meaning anyone can edit, including those with opposing views. We all must follow consensus though. Yes, I believe consensus can get it wrong and does in my view sometimes but I have learned we have to maintain that line even when Wikipedia gets it wrong. And we must do so with understanding and kindness. It isn't always fun, especially when every fiber of your existence says it is wrong. But I have also learned that if it has to be stated here the way I want it to be in order for me to feel some kind of fulfillment then I should just walk away permanently. I would not be here to collaborate but to dictate. Your points are valid and you are genuine. I have no doubt about that. Learn how to apply your knowledge and intellect with the goal of collaboration. Let go of frustration because its only going to hurt you in the end. --ARoseWolf 13:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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).

SteveCree2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not edit warring. The case in question - see the James Flynn article - was left while an admin/editor took a look. Previously, reverts made by me were the product and consequence of discussion at the article Talk page. Following those reversions, the user I was discussing with appeared to agree. More seriously, the James Flynn page is becoming a serious whitewashing. The comments there now, following my blocking, are the worst kind of whitewashing and falsity. James Flynn's strong views about bad black parenting and culture extended from his equally strong view about there being little genetic basis to IQ variation. The passage now removed, which I wrote, provided citations to an interview (1) where he explains these views at length in 2018 and a wholly credible and professional Guardian interview/article (2) which in turn cites Flynn's own work. Flynn's last book was not published in the Uk - as he himself notes in interview (1) - because he wrote at length in it about black parenting and cultural inferiority. I was not edit warring. I do not think the evidence supports this. The admin/editor who looked at it substantially supported my position. Consensus is being abused in this case in a form of lobbying to keep Flynn's comments about race off of the James Flynn article. It is outrageous. As I have said elsewhere, if consensus leads to lies and whitewashing then it is worse than worthless. The block is technically out of order and a terrible indicator of what can happen at Wikipedia SteveCree2 (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. I also find your comments and this request demonstrative of an attitude that is incompatible with a collaborative project. I think that you were lucky that you were only blocked for 48 hours and should your behavior persist after the block expires you will possibly find yourself with a WP:NOTHERE block. I urge you to change course now. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

I'll add that taking the opposite approach of WP:NOTTHEM is never effective when appealing a block. Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@anachronist @EL C @bbb23 @331dot Thanks, all. Take a look at the Flynn article and see my evidence and reasoning. If collaboration leads to an apple being defined as an orange then it's worthless. The Flynn article is whitewashed fanboy nonsense. There's nothing I can do to change that. I've noticed that anything I try to edit which has anything to do with race gets immediately edited back by a clique. I've had a go at editing at Wiki but I conclude it's not a project with integrity. The pseudo lawyering and layered authorities (of white, male administrators) are absurd. There is no interest whatever in addressing racial bias. It's extraordinary and shocking. I'll leave Wikipedia to you folks. Cheerio. SteveCree2 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

SteveCree2 (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Death of Henry Jemmott

Hello, SteveCree2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Death of Henry Jemmott, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Excellence and equity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Excellence and equity, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excellence and equity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)