User talk:Archiloc

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content without 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; I restored the removed content. 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! Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm The Gnome. I noticed that you recently removed some content without 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; I restored the removed content. 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. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Somatotype and constitutional psychology with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Hi Archiloc, I'm Human10.0. I noticed you made this and this edit to the article on homosexual behaviour in animals but did not write any edit summaries. Please provide edit summaries next time you make any edits. Thanks. —Human10.0 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for apparently editing Wikipedia purely for the purpose of "correcting" phrasing that you find insufficiently antisemitic, such as here. More subtly perhaps, changing "(non-Jewish) Germans" to "Germans" here, with the edit summary "delete unnecessary" also clarifies what you're all about. As for adding this and removing this, bah. Wikipedia is not for bigotry. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Archiloc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to begin by saying that all of my edits have been made in an attempt to add to the objectivity of an article. Only when I see obvious partisanship have I intervened, and I only modify the phrasing to make it more neutral and unbiased. I will admit that adding the words "who so pleases" to my last edit gave it a tinge of truculence, but I would willingly accept the removal of those superfluous words. It was a bit reactionary after I recognized that the original wording attempted to single out fringe groups or socially undesirables, as if they were the only ones who used the application about which the article was written. The second example cited by Bishonen criticizes me for removing an unnecessary parenthetical comment. Obviously this is not the place to get into a discussion about what constitutes a German or an American or a Jew; my point in making the edit was simply that the context of the article and of the historical period which the article treats make it sufficiently obvious that when the word 'German' was used it did not include Jews in that category. Thirdly, Bishonen criticizes me for adding the words "so-called" and "alleged" to the word "criminal" when referring to men many of whom had not even been convicted in a court of law (regardless of the validity of the court) and who certainly did not consider themselves to be criminals. All my edit did was to show that these people are considered to be criminals by some, but are not necessarily so by any objective standard. The last edit Bishonen cites was made because there is no ground for the comment which I removed. There was no source referenced to back up the claim that the story may have been motivated by anti-Semitism and that the evidence for it is unreliable. . There are other problems with Bishonen's block: The 'Guide to appealing blocks' page says "the administrator may leave a message explaining your block on your user talk page. These messages should include the names or abbreviations of those of our site rules (the "policies and guidelines") that the blocking administrator believes you have violated." Bishonen did not cite any official policy, and the accusations he/she leveled at me were not even clear in his/her own mind: the ground for the block is, in his/her own words, only an "apparent" one. This means that there was no hard evidence to justify the block. Bishonen also alleges that I use Wikipedia "purely" to make articles more "anti-semitic". Now any administrator that looks through my edits will see that I have edited pages that have nothing to do with Semitism, and, more importantly, I avow that not one edit I have made anywhere is anti-semitic. The "bigotry" of which I have been accused is exactly that which I combat. A bigot is one who sticks to entrenched beliefs, opinions, or a Weltanschauung for irrational reasons or against better evidence; such bigotry leads to the partisanship sometimes found in Wikipedia articles. Thus my role as editor of this site can serve as a counterpoint to this phenomenon; and that, I think, should satisfy the conditions for an unblocking of my account. Archiloc (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly not trying to make the articles more objective; rather, here to push antisemitism. Yamla (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There's been a clear pattern to your edits recently. Your latest one was pretty flagrant:" by ~~anti-semites, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists~~anyone who so pleases ~~as a signal to target Jews for harassment~~identify Jews." That wasn't removing bias and it certainly didn't make the article more accurate. The last edit cited was indeed in the source given at the end of the next sentence. As for people considered to be criminals by some, it's true that Nazis and antisemites don't consider their actions criminal, but then this sort of edit is part of your pattern. As was changing "Born into a Jewish family she considers herself secular and non-religiouss" to "A Jewess,she considers herself secular and non-religious" with the edit summary "correcting a periphrastic statement". You aren't trying to make a counterpoint, you're trying to push your antisemitic views into our articles. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you wrote and deleted a post saying that I conceded your point about "alleged" criminal activities. That's a complete misreading of what I wrote. The fact that Nazis might not consider certain activities criminal doesn't affect their actual criminal nature, it's just a reflection on the moral character of Nazis. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)c[reply]