User talk:73.149.246.232

Hello, I'm 911ChickenCop. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hurricane Maria death toll controversy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 911ChickenCop (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There was in fact an edit summary that duly appears in the article history.73.149.246.232 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article ends up not being deleted, I hope you'll stick around and help bring it up to date. It's evident from your comments in the deletion discussion that you know a lot about this topic, and the article needs more attention from people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. 2600:1004:B11C:DD81:9097:4C1A:1A0B:AEA5 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I also saw a lot of errors (all in the expected direction) in the related article on Human Genetic Clustering but the article is semiprotected for a few weeks. Hopefully will be editable afterward.73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Race and Intelligence. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. this refers to you comment in an edit summary "MEDRS arguments verge on gaslighting" Doug Weller talk 14:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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 14:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Asian sexual fetishism for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page comments, if you read them to the end, are clearly on-topic as they argue the entire page is bogus and requires WP:TNT. The page was a student project whose authors were seemingly expected to fill in a predetermined narrative on Orientalism, stereotypes etc by means of assuming their conclusion and then writing about it on Wikipedia. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice place to live eh? You famous? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much connection between my residential and IP location.73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should let you know, I'm probably going to ask for the request for comment to be closed sometime in the next few days. It hasn't been open for the full 30 days, but the discussion there seems to be going in circles, and I'm concerned that if it becomes too long the closing admin may not read all of it when making their decision. Not taking the time to read the entire discussion appears to have been the reason for Spartaz' initial "delete" close in the AFD, and I'd like to make sure a situation like that doesn't happen again.

You said in JzG's user talk that you'd like to participate in that RFC, so I'm mentioning this to make sure you have the opportunity to do that before it's closed. The page protection is scheduled to end in about 3 hours. I can wait for you to comment there before I request closure, as long as you intend to do so sometime soon. 2600:1004:B124:7FAA:4C50:DF28:EDDB:8750 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The posts I intended to make would be fairly long and would take me a while to complete, and others' comments would probably ensue with some back and forth, so I hope it is not closed any time soon.

One of the comments I intended to post was that this is a repeat of the AfD, which (as I warned at the time) could be, and now has been, used as a template for the suppression of any article on this site subject to a lot of IDONTLIKEIT opposition. Namely, post a long and nebulous RfC, AfD or other discussion thread, that is 10% about the topic and 90% about irrelevant, tangential or theoretical matters that turn it into a free-for-all of pre-existing personal opinion not related to the actual and actionable Wikipedia matters. Then, have the OP and a few activists, mostly on one side of the question, effectively lock out other participation by aggressive WALLOFTEXT and BLUDGEONing, using emotionalized language and personal comments on participants (NightHeron and Levivich, in particular, should have been topic banned even before this thread). The result is a long and chaotic mess that amounts to a rehearsal of the off-topic political positions of the commenters, who can be preselected by strategic forum shopping. The more unreadable it gets, the more randomness is introduced into the administrator decisionmaking, which is the whole point when the agitating party never seems able to win on the merits.

So I think it is better to let the whole fiasco play out to 30 days and have that be a demonstration of how egregious the premise was, and either throw the whole thing out, restart it as a far more focused question, or discuss the general manipulation-via-deliberate-chaos phenomenon at a higher level WP policy board. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2600:1012 IP, who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of Sprayitchyo, has made several comments in that discussion recently. This may result in the page being protected again, so if you want to comment there I strongly recommend doing that as soon as possible. 2600:1004:B102:5E92:9D83:A5B4:3992:6B43 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork has announced that he is intending to close the RFC tomorrow, so if you still wish to comment there, today is probably the last opportunity for that.

I know your preference is for RFC to remain open the full 30 days, but I really do think closing it earlier is for the best. However, since you previously said that you wanted to comment there, I thought I should give you this notification as a courtesy. 2600:1004:B103:64A1:6039:8135:7324:1DE3 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the issue to WP:RSN. As there are other related issues with Ayers' article, I've gone to WP:BLPN with that. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]