Harrow1234
Welcome
edit
|
January 2021 (once again)
edit
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.
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
Generalrelative (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Richard Lynn. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Stay off my talk page from here on. You are no longer welcome. Stop harassing me. Stop the uncivil comments. Stop the hounding and following me around. Stop your ownership of articles. You. Do. Not. Own. any article dude! Harrow1234 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- This edit[1] where you added "which is a sound indicator of general intelligence and abstract reasoning ability." is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Continuing to do that can result in a block or as the area is covered by discretionary sanctions a topic ban from the area. WP:Hounding states that "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". That's what I see User:Generalrelative as doing. They're entitled to give you warnings and I see no uncivil comments by them, that's just a standard template, not their own wording. Their comments at Talk:Intimate partner violence are civil and they and User:Crossroads have given you good advice. Please assume good faith. Just to clarify who I am, I'm an WP:Administrator and was elected for two terms to the WP:Arbitration Committee that wrote the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hey @Harrow1234. I would like to point out that User:Doug Weller and User:Generalrelative as just some guys like you editting on wikipedia, you shouldn't necessarily put too much stock in their opinion or whether they are right or wrong. You should however pay attention the wikipedia policies and general ethos of wikipedia, which are kind of necessary for a functioning system. The "original research is forbidden" is kind of bluster, when summarizing sources it is quite easy to slip into WP:OR, and while writing large sections of uncited theorising will probably get you a block eventually Doug Weller's comment don't seem particularly relevant in this and I don't see any reason to pay much attention to his admin credentials that he seems somewhat bizarrely keen to bring up. Hey some people like doling out authority.
- For some context I get the impression that there can be a bit of "new editor authoritarian bluster".
- Anyway, as I say it's best to ignore this stuff, I should probably do so myself.
- Having a cursory look at your original article, I note that it quite well referenced which is good, but felt that it was too much content for the lead as it turned the lead into a bit of screde against the subject of the article. It might be better summarized with the bulk of the content added to the section below on allegations of racism. I can see why people felt your edits on [Sex difference in intelligence] were NPOV, though they equally could have been removing NPOV. In particularly I am interested if "which is a sound indicator of general intelligence and abstract reasoning ability." is reflected in the source that follows it (which I very much doubt that Doug Weller checked given his peacocking authoritarian zeal) if not it should probably be cited.
- I agree that the "banner" seem to carry an air of officialness that they don't actually have. People seem to like them - so all you can do is ignore them. I also note that User:Generalrelative did revert your commits on two separate articles, however it's possible that both are on their watchlist because the articles are related.
- Anyway. I'm not sure what to suggest. Don't be intimidated by process, follow wikipedia's policies well, cite sources well for edits and arguments, ask people for reasons for their actions, worry about the article itself rather blustering threats - but listen to valid comments about the content of an article
Talpedia (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I also might suggest editing some less controversial articles... it involve a little less conflict. That's not to say that it's not important to edit controversial articles, just it's easier to learn elsewhere. Talpedia (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Talpedia: I realise that you are trying to help but you haven't really addressed the issues and in some cases given bad advice. Sure, I may be wrong sometimes but I do have a long history here and have acted in various capacities, so maybe I might know a bit. I felt that I should point out that in fact I'm an Admin - I sometimes wish our signatures carried that information with a link just so that people would know what Admins are, ie not moderators but editors with no authority over content (except for copyvio and biographies of living people of course) but with the ability to protect pages and block editors. I think new editors should know that. The "banner", if by that you mean the DS Alert, it's extremely official. And calling me names (you know about no personal attacks surely?) and not showing good faith doesn't hurt me at all, but it's not a good idea to suggest by example that it's ok. And being civil and showing good faith is always important and more so in areas where there are discretionary sanctions, as we expect even more civility than usual there. Your comment about whether "which is a sound indicator of general intelligence and abstract reasoning ability." is reflected in the source is one I'd like an answer to, but you should know that if it is then it would have to be attributed and not said in Wikipedia's own voice. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- By banner I meant the warning that you are editing a page with administrative sanctions in effect. It *is* official in the sense that the information in it is correct, but it isn't a sanction or a warning. The information is useful, but equally in can appear like "an official warning", particularly if posted by someone who has just reverted your edits.
- I have no particular concern about my behaviour, though note that civility and good faith are clearly important and should be sought if possible. Experience suggests that accusations of bias and threats of sanctions can occur on controversial arguments even if you are civil and engaging in good faith editing, and you must be able to face them down to some degree. I think extending expectations of good faith to how you feel other people are being treated is a stretch, it is far easier to assume good faith about edits to an article and opinions about what is true than it is to the treatment of others. I feel that it is also important that wikipedia is a place where people can learn and are protected from too authoritarian sanctions, though clearly bad faith editing and vandalism does occur, so some means of avoidng this is necessary, including blocks.
- I must admit I am unclear on precisely when you can use wikipedia's voice, but I agree in this case it is better not to.
- @Talpedia: I realise that you are trying to help but you haven't really addressed the issues and in some cases given bad advice. Sure, I may be wrong sometimes but I do have a long history here and have acted in various capacities, so maybe I might know a bit. I felt that I should point out that in fact I'm an Admin - I sometimes wish our signatures carried that information with a link just so that people would know what Admins are, ie not moderators but editors with no authority over content (except for copyvio and biographies of living people of course) but with the ability to protect pages and block editors. I think new editors should know that. The "banner", if by that you mean the DS Alert, it's extremely official. And calling me names (you know about no personal attacks surely?) and not showing good faith doesn't hurt me at all, but it's not a good idea to suggest by example that it's ok. And being civil and showing good faith is always important and more so in areas where there are discretionary sanctions, as we expect even more civility than usual there. Your comment about whether "which is a sound indicator of general intelligence and abstract reasoning ability." is reflected in the source is one I'd like an answer to, but you should know that if it is then it would have to be attributed and not said in Wikipedia's own voice. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I also might suggest editing some less controversial articles... it involve a little less conflict. That's not to say that it's not important to edit controversial articles, just it's easier to learn elsewhere. Talpedia (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Talpedia (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Harrow1234, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Harrow1234! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
Psychometrics
editUser:Harrow1234, Thank you for your edits of the psychometrics entry today. It is important to include criticisms of psychometrics but the criticisms you undid were poorly framed. Iss246 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)