User talk:Tiny Dancer 48

Hello, Tiny Dancer 48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Introduction to Wikipedia | Tutorial
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Wikipedia:Questions, stop by and/or ask a question at the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred

I undid your removal on Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. While it does not give a proper citation and link, it does specify the provision. That should be enough for one to find and do a proper citation. Please see wp:preserve. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Race (human categorization) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 17:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool. Am I violating Wikipedia's principles in some way? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Stop edit warring on Race (human categorization). While WP:3RR is the "bright red line", edit warring is not limited to just 3 reverts in a 24 hours period. You've been going at this for days. If you continue, you may be blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tiny_Dancer_48 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Race (human categorization)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Please see my note there regarding WP:ARBR&I. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I think you are going to be indefinitely blocked pretty soon, and the reason is very simple: you are not actually/positively contributing to development of WP - based on your editing history. Let's consider your typical edits. [1] - this is not an improvement because the definitions by Kant and Darwin have only historical significance and differ from modern views. [2] - while I agree that your sources are secondary, making such "quotation farms" is not an improvement. [3] - a revert of info which is probably valid without any explanation and follow up. What should you do? Edit something "easier" and create valid content. Last diff above is most instructive. You found something poorly sourced, but factual and simple. This is easy to fix. OK. Check the sourcing and correct this info according to the sources. Otherwise, all your editing so far makes an impression of POV-pushing without any positive contributions. This is a reason for indefinite block. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. So the current article attributing the race concept to the slave trade also needs some bannings. You're a joke dude. Save your lame intimidation tactics for somebody stupider. Any more of this nonsense will be reported. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this. You made very few edits in article space so far [4]. How many of them were not reverted by other contributors? Few to none? If so, it means you are wasting your time and time of other contributors. This is not good. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it means I'm trying to edit an article dominated by a POV pushing stonewalling tagteam. That's why I sought outside input on the NPOV page. Friend, everything you are writing here is ridiculous. Please refrain. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you lost because you received no support on NPOV page. Look, I actually agree with a lot of things on the subject you tell, but you are going to be blocked if you will not be able to contribute constructively. Trust me. I gave a similar advice to people in various subject areas (two of them in the area of "race and intelligence"). Yes, they were blocked or banned. Bye, My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hypocrite. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I'd like to be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't sense much sincerity or intelligence in your comments. For the second time, please refrain from writing here. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions and personal attacks

Noting the personal attacks above, I'm wondering if you didn't read or are just ignoring the statement that " uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies." For our standards of behavior read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you're biased towards the "race is not biological" POV so you will be biased when the editor above suggests banning me, and only me, for discussing non PC history.

Doug, buddy. What do you think? As an arbitrator I think it's relevant. Is race a valid biological concept? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators don't get involved in content disputes, we deal with conduct disputes between editors. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request

Please be aware of an arbitration enforcement request made regarding you. It can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tiny_Dancer_48. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Ban from all topics covered by the WP:ARBR&I decision

You have been sanctioned per evidence that you are unable to edit neutrally in this domain, as provided in the complaint at AE. This sanction may be appealed in six months.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBR&I#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pathetic. Your sub academic website is an embarrassment. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User:EvergreenFir, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Strongjam (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This cultural Marxist sexual pervert was harassing me. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the fast track to turning your topic ban into a block. clpo13_(talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares. Your website is a joke. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, you got topic banned and now you're going to take your toys and go home. Such a pity. clpo13_(talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The playpen is where you are dipshit. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Felicia. clpo13_(talk) 18:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 18:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]