Jump to content

User talk:Dark Tea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Moreschi (talk | contribs)
→‎Blocked: new section
Dark Tea (talk | contribs)
unblock request
Line 57: Line 57:
== Blocked ==
== Blocked ==


I'm blocking you for 3 months, though it really should be indef. As documented at [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race]], you have systematically, over the last 3 years, fouled up an entire topic-area. Our "race" articles are all in a complete mess, and I reckon 70 percent of this to be your fault. Your credulous italicized inclusion of any lengthy quote from anyone, so long as it looks impressive, is simply unacceptable: reverting to re-include such junk is essentially vandalism. Particularly when attached to a distinct "racialist" agenda, as far as I can make out. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm blocking you for 3 months, though it really should be indef. As documented at [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race]] , you have systematically, over the last 3 years, fouled up an entire topic-area. Our "race" articles are all in a complete mess, and I reckon 70 percent of this to be your fault. Your credulous italicized inclusion of any lengthy quote from anyone, so long as it looks impressive, is simply unacceptable: reverting to re-include such junk is essentially vandalism. Particularly when attached to a distinct "racialist" agenda, as far as I can make out. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=[[User:Moreschi]] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. [[User:Moreschi]] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race|already stated]] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the [[Asian people|Asian]]/[[Mongoloid]] articles and their related [[Afro-Asian]], [[Eurasian (mixed ancestry)|Eurasian]] and [[multiracial]] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, [[User:Zaphnathpaaneah]], a black editor, edited the [[black people]] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power.}}

Revision as of 20:53, 11 September 2008

Interracial Marriage

Do you know any statistics of marriages between Latinos and other groups? Agtax 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet, there are statistics involving Hispanic exogamy but they incorrectly give Hispanics the distinction of being their own race, comparing their exogamy with other races rather than non-Hispanics. Hispanic is not a race, so I haven't added it to the interracial marriage article and I have been careful to not include interracial statistics which botch their data by including Hispanic as a race.----DarkTea© 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the statistics of interracial marriages recorded last year and this year? Agtax 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found them on the internet, but I haven't been looking specifically for 2007 or 2008 statistics.----DarkTea© 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block

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).

Dark Tea (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

My IP has been affected by a range block intended to target another IP editor, but my account shows that I'm a good editor.

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

  1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
    Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
    If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
  2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
  3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
  4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. —  Sandstein  08:50, 22 July 2008 (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.

{{unblock-ip|71.107.178.165}}

Please follow the above instructions exactly, or we cannot unblock you.  Sandstein  09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "IP blocked?" section?----DarkTea© 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessions with Indians

Why are you obsessed with Indians when you are of Japanese ancestry? You seem to be on a rampage to prove that Indians are not caucasians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids (both in the Asian American article where you insist on including Indians and in the mongoloid article where you insist on including indians). It sounds like you are jealous of the caucasoid features of many Indians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids. Bluescientist (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to personal attacks. They are part of the Asian race, although some people disagree. If you were the IP editor who made the deletion of citations on the Mongoloid article recently, remember to next time log in to Wikipedia. Also, remember Wikipedia works by citations, not opinions.---DarkTea© 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race stuff

Hi, you've done a good job with the articles about the Caucasian race and Mongoloid race, so I was thinking if you could maybe take a look at the Negroid article some day? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would like to contribute to that article, I'm afraid of being accused of being a racist if I contribute to that article.----DarkTea© 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the main problem with that article was that the user User:Muntuwandi "owned" the article, but he has now been blocked indefinitely as a massive sockpuppet-master. Another user with ownage problems in relation to that article, User:Jeeny, has been blocked indefinitely too. I think if anything, you'd make the article even less POV, as you always use citations, contrary to many other people who edit such articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deeceevoice is an African editor who made this edit where they removed a citation about the existence of physical and mental racial differences. I think my citations about physical and mental differences will be removed by this editor.----DarkTea© 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, You made it very clear that it was a controversial view and all that, but it wasn't sourced, which is problematic for controversial material. Deeceevoice seems to be a sane person, contrary to Muntuwandi and Jeeny, so a talk page discussion could probably solve eventual differences, and there probably won't be problems if statements are sourced. I'll throw in my "two cents" if discussion gets heated, as I think I and Deecevoice are on good terms. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Milford

There's no "Rachel Milford" - there are Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, two individuals.

I'm really curious where you are getting your references - in this case [1] it's obviously not from the book itself or a facsimile like Amazon Preview or Google Books, but must be some secondary source where the names were garbled.

It's an excellent book about the multiregional hypothesis - I recommend obtaining the book or reading a facsimile. --JWB (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember she had two last names in Google Books. Perhaps one is a maiden name.----DarkTea© 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Google Books entry for the book that clearly shows the two authors' names. It was the first search result for the title and took a couple of seconds to find. What source are you looking at? --JWB (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at Google books.----DarkTea© 23:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Talk Page for Sandbox before August 22

My home IP is being affected by a range IP block, targeting a dynamic IP vandal, so I am going to be using this space for collecting citations until August 22. The block ends August 22.----DarkTea© 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

Dark Tea, could you email me? Want to say something privately (not bad, don't worry!). Hope this is allowed. Email from my page, or just send to fiona2211814 at gmail dot com. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona2211814 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to talk with Wikipedia editors via email.----DarkTea© 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I'm blocking you for 3 months, though it really should be indef. As documented at Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race , you have systematically, over the last 3 years, fouled up an entire topic-area. Our "race" articles are all in a complete mess, and I reckon 70 percent of this to be your fault. Your credulous italicized inclusion of any lengthy quote from anyone, so long as it looks impressive, is simply unacceptable: reverting to re-include such junk is essentially vandalism. Particularly when attached to a distinct "racialist" agenda, as far as I can make out. Moreschi (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Dark Tea (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

User:Moreschi has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. User:Moreschi says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have already stated that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the Asian/Mongoloid articles and their related Afro-Asian, Eurasian and multiracial articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, User:Zaphnathpaaneah, a black editor, edited the black people article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:Moreschi]] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. [[User:Moreschi]] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race|already stated]] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the [[Asian people|Asian]]/[[Mongoloid]] articles and their related [[Afro-Asian]], [[Eurasian (mixed ancestry)|Eurasian]] and [[multiracial]] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, [[User:Zaphnathpaaneah]], a black editor, edited the [[black people]] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Moreschi]] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. [[User:Moreschi]] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race|already stated]] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the [[Asian people|Asian]]/[[Mongoloid]] articles and their related [[Afro-Asian]], [[Eurasian (mixed ancestry)|Eurasian]] and [[multiracial]] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, [[User:Zaphnathpaaneah]], a black editor, edited the [[black people]] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Moreschi]] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. [[User:Moreschi]] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race|already stated]] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the [[Asian people|Asian]]/[[Mongoloid]] articles and their related [[Afro-Asian]], [[Eurasian (mixed ancestry)|Eurasian]] and [[multiracial]] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, [[User:Zaphnathpaaneah]], a black editor, edited the [[black people]] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}