User talk:Thantalteresco/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Thantalteresco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lumos3 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not The Premier

Just tried to edit an article and got message "your account, IP address, or IP address range has been disabled by Gnangarra for the following reason(s): Block evasion: user:ThePremier".

Well: I've never been The Premier. Is this a confusion? An admin mistake perhaps? Thantalteresco (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not; more likely, someone from your IP address has behaved in a disruptive manner. I'll post on the administrator's noticeboard asking for a review of the block.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate. Thantalteresco (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log show that you've been blocked directly, not indirectly. I'll leave a message for the blocking admin, Gnangarra (talk · contribs). Bencherlite ^Talk 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious what is the difference between an indirect and a direct block? Not very important though. Just curious... Thantalteresco (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked deliberately, rather than having been accidentally caught in an autoblock caused by the blocking of another account using the same IP address or of the IP address itself. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. As to the discusssion going on here, what a shame. I am thousand of miles away from Australia and have never been there. Also, I am not an SPA. An SPA is usually a pov pusher on a specific subject. You can see that I have never edit warried. Yes: the very few edits (comparatively in months of wikicareer) have been focused in related articles. This does not convert me in a SPA. Actually, I told an editor I would never edit again the article on Australian infanticide (I hate to spend hours discussing a single line so I usually and rapidly quit from editing controversial subjects). But the real issue here is that I am not the Premier or his/her socks. Since that's the hard fact, besides unblocking perhaps a gracious apology might be in order? Thantalteresco (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From the exchange here and your question to the blocker admin in his talk page, I discovered that the right spelling is not user:The Premier but user:Premier. --Thantalteresco (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins: please remove this unjust block immediately. Going to bed right now. Hope everything will be all right by tomorrow morning. Thanks. Thantalteresco (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The {{help}} template isn't used for unblock requests. You need to use the {{unblock|Your Reason Here}} template. Fre h ley 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am not user:Premier. How could I have been blocked for so many hours for a false reason? An apology is in order}}

responding to a note on my talk page, applying the standard Duck test I'm sufficiently convincd that this user is User:Premier Gnan garra 10:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now please check my IP. If the info in the linked page above is correct, Premier lives in Australia, right? Well, IP will show I'm thousands of miles away from Australia. Thantalteresco (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}}

I am sorry that I am placing this "help" template for the third time but, since I am not Premier and it is unfair to find me blocked so many hours for the wrong reasons, I need action to be taken soon. Thank you. Thantalteresco (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The help template cannot be used for unblock requests. If you continue to abuse the help template you will be blocked from editing this talk page. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know I shouldn't use this template even in urgent cases (such as this one).

On the other hand, since I am not Premier and since no admins have come to this talk page in the last few hours trying to help or even communicate with me about an unjust block, how then can I call for prompt help? (Keep in mind that I've been unfairly blocked for many hours.)

Thantalteresco (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Unblocked by User:Fred Bauder, for the reason Not clear that user is Premier.

Request handled by: EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

A suggestion

I've looked at your edits and Premier's edits. There is some resemblance in emotional tone. I suggest you avoid editing hot button issues of the sort you have been editing, at least until you are a much more experienced editor. Bottom line, I guess, is that if you keep other people upset, they'll do something about it. Fred Talk 13:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, isn't it a little surreal that, since I am not that banned user from Australia, I am threatened on the sole basis that I might be him/her? Jesus! Thantalteresco (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DUCK. Fred Talk 15:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred: Don't say that. Please. I am not that guy. I live in Spain and have never been in Australia. Here's the proof that I am in Spain: 88.7.216.138 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC), aka Thantalteresco (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not *entirely* unreasonable that someone could, say, move to or holiday in another country and be editing from there. But I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you do what you said a few days ago at my talk page and focus on improving film articles - this is also in agreement with the advice Fred gave you above. The race-related areas are some of the most contentious on Wikipedia and it's not difficult to land in hot water. Orderinchaos 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nop! My mother language is Spanish. in fact, I edit the Spanish wiki with the same name: Thantalteresco. Is that banned Australian user very fluent in Spanish too? I mean: being my native language, my Spanish is far better than my English here. Just ask to the Wikipedians of the es:wiki! Thantalteresco (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you had 40 contributions on es. prior to this particular debate, and although less focused on the same area (more edits about religion over there), made an edit to the same disputed content in their infanticide article on Australia at around the same time it was added here. I would be curious to find who added it there (I mistakenly thought it was you on a first check but now I see it was already there). Orderinchaos 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just answered my own question: César Tort on 11 Apr 2008. Interesting nickname. Orderinchaos 18:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now: if I am not a banned Australian user, I shouldn't be banned at all. And by the way, don't play the "race" card as you have been doing. Here in Spain I have written about infanticide in the Canaria Islands: tribes conquered by the Spaniards long time ago. The point is that the Canaria natives were more Aryan, i.e., more white and blond, than the Iberian Spaniards who conquered them. But the Aryan natives practiced infanticide just as other tribes did in those centuries. My point: reporting the practice in Wikipedia has nothing to do with racism (unless you believe that the comparatively darker in their skin Spaniards were "racists" against the Aryan tribes in the islands). Thantalteresco (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither "played the race card" nor called you racist. For one thing - you didn't even write the content, although you perhaps defended it rather ardently. The problem was that the content went far beyond "reporting the practice" as it used sensationalist sources of an older vintage, several of which have been roundly discredited. Wikipedia policies and guidelines instruct us away from conducting original research and oblige us to act within a neutral point of view. As the views in the article represented a fringe view associated with the far right of Australian politics (although it was historically a mainstream view), it was not conforming to Wikipedia policy.

In Australia, although maybe not in Spain, demonising the "natives" or "primitives" was part and parcel of ensuring denial of rights to them. In short, if they were "uncivilised", they needed "civilising" or "Christianising" to give up their allegedly barbaric ways. The extremes of this somewhat inhuman view can be seen here, whilst the logical conclusions of a more mainstream version were the Stolen Generations, now recognised as a national tragedy enacted by governments and enshrined in legislation right up until almost modern times. A more informed approach to anthropology pervades modern studies and critical examination of the earlier texts reveals many contradictions and gaps which cannot be explained by available evidence. Orderinchaos 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the article represented a fringe view associated with the far right"

It didn't. The sources were scholarly. I told you before that some authors of the text you removed sympathized much with the native Australians (though they admitted infanticide). If the far right or anyone later used their reports to "demonize" the tribes it's not our business. WP reports what scholars say. Even the ugly stuff. But since this discussion is going in circles and WP is no soapbox I suggest we end all discussion right now. Thantalteresco (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As was covered ad nauseum at previous talk pages, scholars do not say it. Scholars did say it a very long time ago, often on the basis of questionable second and third hand reports - often by people who had never observed the alleged practices - which would not even be accepted as the basis for a university essay today let alone venerable research. See e.g. [1]. But I agree with you - there is no point in continuing this discussion. I wish you well in your future editing. Orderinchaos 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geza Roheim saw actual infanticide and cannibalism among the Australian tribes, I've told you, even though he loved the tribes' people very much. Good by. Thantalteresco (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to have. Big distinction. Orderinchaos 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point. Roheim loved so much those people that his disciples held polemical battles against those who condemned the practice. (Note that neither Roheim's fans nor Roheim himself denied the practice during their polemics with other scholars.) But enough is enough. We agree to disagree. Period. Thantalteresco (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[exchanges in Spanish]

(in Spanish) Te bloqueó Gnangarra, así que acudí directamente a su página de discusión. Suerte con tu caso, ~~×α£đ~~^es 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deja de llamarlo el enemigo, errado o no, debes asumir buena fe, no quieres que te desbloqueen por no ser títere y te bloqueen luego por no tener buena fe. Ya solicité un análisis Checkuser, y sí, si me necesitas, puedes contactarme. Saludos, ~~×α£đ~~^es 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por tu iniciativa. No sabía que un comentario fuera de en:wiki (lo que dije en tu página de la es:wiki) pudiera tener un efecto punitivo acá. De cualquier manera, tu iniciativa mostrará conclusivamente que no estoy en Australia. Y eso es algo bueno. Thantalteresco (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XalD (talk · contribs) came into the #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect channel asking for someone to look into this. I have to say, I cannot make up my mind here, so I suggest emailing unblock-en-l[at]lists[dot]wikimedia[dot]org. Present any supporting evidence that is available and await further responses if needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya que estás bloqueado, lo mejor que pude hacer fue ingresar a un canal de IRC. Entré a #wikipedia-en-unblock y me atendió PeterSymonds (como te habrás dado cuenta). Recuerda ser amable. A partir de aquí no sé en qué pueda ayudarte, es un asunto de buena fe. Eñes, ~~×α£đ~~^es 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No había visto el mensaje que me dejaste en mi discusión en español. unblock-en-l[at]lists[dot]wikimedia[dot]org → cambia los at por arrobas @ y los dot por puntos. O sea, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org El mensaje envíalo tú, y recuerda mantener la calma. ~~×α£đ~~^es 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¡Magnífico! Ya les envié una carta cordial. Thantalteresco (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safari no puede abrirlo porque es un canal de IRC. Visita es:WP:IRC. ~~×α£đ~~^es 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]