Weagesdf

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Longhair 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Newslinger talk 23:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please note that Special:Diff/1013318767 added original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

DS 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Jorm (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Facebook, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Now, why is it that almost all of the free-speech social media sites state at the very top of the posts that they are sites that are havens to racists/homophobes/degenerates, but a sourced statement about Facebook is removed and counted as disruptive?

Reverted statement: Facebook is a social media site which is popular among racists, homophobes, White supremacists, and antisemites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weagesdf (talk • contribs)

See WP:POINT. That you have a problem with one article is not a reason to vandalize some other article. - MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Why is adding a sourced fact that makes the Facebook social media wiki page similar in structure to other social media pages, such as BitChute, Gab, Minds, Parler, etc., vandalizing a page? Weagesdf (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Facebook. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jorm (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

January 2022

This is a last warning in relation to using WP as an activism platform including for racialism. I was about to report you now as not being here for the encyclopedia, but warnings are usually necessary first. The talk page discussion was already closed as not worth replying to, but I'll just note that biologists don't consider extant human variation to include subspecies. Extinct and distant Neanderthal/Denisovans are the closest to what might be considered a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, yet their classification was still hotly debated. But these are also old arguments for WP regulars... —PaleoNeonate – 03:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite any activity I have done that is activism for racialism? Understanding that there are biological races in no way necessitates any belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of one group over the other. Different people have different interests. If what I am doing is activism, then it is the same as what others are doing that block my input (which is well-sourced). "but I'll just note that biologists don't consider extant human variation to include subspecies." This is not unanimous,, it does not have consensus and is largely political. The push is largely from anthropologists and sociologists. Less so from biologists and those in the medical field, and even less so outside of the West. Scientists in Eastern Europe, Asia, etc., have access to the same knowledge and yet do not have the same political beliefs, and so they do not play make-believe that variation between groups really does not exist. Infants can discriminate between race/ethnicity, but perhaps you think those babies are racialist, and not really picking out distinct phenotypes? You furtively calling me names (racist) and threatening to report me is nothing but a show of power of the ideological bias present on WP. "If an idea is true, we had better accommodate our moral sensibilities to it, since no good can come from sanctifying a delusion" —Steven Pinker | Weagesdf (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)