User talk:Thespearthrower

Whyte vs. Povetkin

I fixed the error for you and left your addition in. – ².O.^Boxing 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings in lead sections

Just to clarify my removal of this; it's not that I "dislike the information", it's what is recommended in MOS:BOXING/LEAD. It states:

Rankings

Pound for pound or weight class rankings by The Ring magazine, Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, ESPN and BoxRec may be included if a boxer has been ranked inside the top ten at any point in their career. Include at least a year when this occurred, with sources from the official websites. – ².O.^Boxing 19:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Shuichiro Yoshino

Hello,

Your page seems to still be up, but with the last name first and given name second, while this has the name in proper order. No credit stolen, you simply created an article about a person who already had one. If you're still unfamiliar with how creating wiki articles work, please go through Help:Your first article and use the article wizard, as it is more accessible for new users. I apologize for not noticing your article, and please feel free to ask me if you need any help or advice. - GameRCrom (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Your recent editing history at Talk:Kiwi Farms 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 0xDeadbeef 05:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Kiwi Farms) for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Thespearthrower that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not "accidentally removed"

The sentence you re-added was not "accidentally removed" as you state here: [1]. I ask you to self-revert and seek consensus on the talk page. I do not agree that this is sentence is due for inclusion in the lead of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't accidentally reverted you broke the 1RR rule, but I didn't want to make accusations. You shouldn't break rules through sneaky means. I don't understand why you would admit to breaking rules and doing so purposefully.

You misunderstand the 1RR rule, and please don't call me "sneaky". Generalrelative (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive deleting of references

Hey there, perhaps you could help us by reverting the disruptive deletion of references by GeneralRelative in the introduction of the Race and Intelligence article 191.106.192.101 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are us? You’ve never even edited before. Doug Weller talk 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another sock puppet. No surprise. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can an IP address be a sock puppet? Thespearthrower (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked editor editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And good luck at the hospital man, I sincerely wish you well-being. Thespearthrower (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not willing to discuss, I have to ask for an RfC. I doubt admins will do anything, unfortunately. It's strange, I don't understand the dislike for science when it pertains to IQ. But they've made up their mind, and as you've seen, no amount of surveys, studies or sources will convince them. The NightHeron guy also lied and claimed one of the studies I posted was claimed by me "to be one of the best", which although I would agree with, I never did anything of the sort. There's no point in debating with somebody willing to ignore reliable sources and science. There's definitely no point in debating somebody willing to lie in front of other people blatantly because they're that certain the other editors aren't going to chastise their behavior, they're not going to change their opinion. I also have the above admin following me around because I called some guy's way of breaking the 1 revert rule "sneaky".

I also don't want people to misunderstand why I am editing the article. To clarify, it is to fix the POV of the article, which currently gives undue weight to the fringe theory that IQ doesn't accurately measure intelligence. I am not editing anything to do with race. Thespearthrower (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still thinking of opening a RFC, please do not open it. Look at this discussion about an article published in Reason, not the article itself, but the Twitter discussion's nearly unanimous rejection of the article's claim that Wikipedia is still trustworthy. That discussion suggests the public has learned (or is in the process of learning) that Wikipedia can't be trusted anymore about controversial subjects. That's additionally suggested by the large number of other sites that gave coverage to the Quillette article about this trend, [2] [3] [4] including from respected figures such as Jerry Coyne [5] and Andrew Sullivan. [6]

It would be a great situation if Wikipedia's coverage of these topics could be restored to something that the public considers trustworthy, but that probably will not happen. It's best to take a long view of the effect it has when Wikipedia makes statements that the broader public knows to be false or absurd, such as that IQ testing is invalid or that the entire field of psychometry has been corrupted with racism, as is stated in item 8 of the FAQ. The way Wikipedia editors have doubled down on these statements means that you or I will fail if we try to challenge them, but in the longer term the real loser is proving to be Wikipedia's reputation.

I suggest not stopping other editors from making Wikipedia reputation's slowly self-destruct in the way that seems to be happening now, if they want to do that. The more trust the public loses in these articles, the less it will matter what the articles say. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]