User talk:68.96.245.221

Race and intelligence

The discussion has been closed related to the multi-regional hypothesis and brain size etc. You cannot bring wildly speculative and unsourced content to wikipedia's articles, and the discussion page is reserved for issues specific to the article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core editing policies relating to verification, original research and neutral point of view. The Race and intelligence article is currently subject to additional sanctions and policy is strictly enforced there. I invite you to check out the WP:Welcome page as a good introduction for beginners to wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Professor Marginalia!

Well, just out of the spirit of free discussion I propose that we just keep the discussion the way it was without the off topic deletions. This way more people will join in the discussion and hopefully we can get more better input from the world. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.245.221 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 December 2010

Talk pages aren't allowed to be used as forums for "free discussion".See FORUM. Talk pages are for discussing sourced content issues. If this is your first introduction to wikipedia, the Race and intelligence will be a frustrating article to begin in. It currently falls under special sanctions imposed by the arbitration committee. (See the note at the top of the page here with the caution tag that points to active arbitration remedies imposed on the Race and intelligence article). The policies must be strictly adhered to. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

@68: Your plan is no different from that of hundreds of other people who try to use Wikipedia to promote their favorite topic. It is standard procedure for such misuse of Wikipedia to be rejected because this is not a forum. Material here must be verifiable and due. Many editors have agreed that your material is not suitable for an article, so it is also not suitable for display on talk pages. Accordingly it will be removed (in the current case, it is archived here). If you edit war you will be blocked, so you need to find another venue to express your views. Some of the other examples of your POV pushing can be seen at 71.68.251.54 contribs and 68.222.236.154 contribs (last two IPs are blocked for a year), and at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard ("evolved_from_Homo_Erectus_Pekinensis"_claim permalink) where 98.122.103.183 was blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you try to paste me as a bad guy and lump me together with the other ip editor who originally posted the discussion, we are two separate people who just have common viewpoint that is supported by scientific journals. I just did an IP check on the above IP's you listed and they geolocate South Carolina. Just so you know, I ain't never been to South Carolina before, so stop slandering me with someone elses edits. I am not responsible for what the guy or girl is writing. I just wrote my own analysis of the scientific evidence present by the previous ip editor, nothing more. You are the one pushing pov by trying to block or limit people's ability to edit so that you can push your pov. Wikipedia should be neutral. And by the way, the edits are in no way fringe as they are supported by peer reviewed scientific journals. So stop saying bad things about me that just aren't true! 68.96.249.144 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 09:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, therefore a lot of opinions are posted at many different pages. When unhelpful material is repeatedly added, other editors are entitled to remove it (anyone can edit, particularly established editors). Less than a week ago you were blocked for disruptive editing, yet you have again repeated your soapboxing at Talk:Race and intelligence (diff). You must stop or you may be blocked again without further warning. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions warning

(Copied from Talk:Race and intelligence)

I am imposing a warning under the Standard Discretionary Sanctions finding of the Race and intelligence arbcom case against the IP editor who keeps adding this "Han Chinese" material.

For more details on the discretionary sanctions, see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

To quote from that:

Authorization

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

I will be notifying the IP addresses on their respective talk pages as well.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)