User talk:Thrillydee

Welcome!

Hello, Thrillydee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Olmecs did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olmecs

Although it is correct to say that there have been WP:fringe suggestions of an African origin for the Olmecs, they are not "notable" among those studying the Olmecs, and the section is about ethno-linguistic relationships. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Van Sertima is most certainly notable, among others. I noticed one of the descriptions of Van Sertima's work was categorized as "pseudo-science", yet nothing was specified as why it was considered that. What has been proven wrong about Van Sertima's work?

Thrillydee (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's basically ignored by archaeologists, which is why I said what I did. He's notable enough to have his own article. The real question would be what has been proven to be correct, ie to be pseudoarcheology. Ironically he was also racist in that, like some white fringe writers, he was arguing that "the natives didn't do it". Doug Weller talk 09:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Van Sertima work can be dismissed and he can be considered racist because he said"the natives didn't do it", then by that same logic, can other archeologists be considered racist because they dismiss any Black historian or archaeologist as "pseudo", no matter what evidence they bring?

Thrillydee (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not logical and doesn't happen, so no. But I'm not going to argue this anymore. You're making arguments with no reliable sources and I don't have time anyway. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were "arguing." I was simply asking questions pertaining to your justifications on applying certain labels. Thrillydee (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome

Hi Thrillydee. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to picking up where Wennradio left off, you used proxies to edit and to create sleeper accounts in quick succession (i.e. Historybrainz (talk · contribs) and Popcornhemp (talk · contribs)). There is no doubt that you this account was created in bad faith contrary to our policies regarding multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "sock puppet" of anyone's account nor am I using proxies. I was editing in good faith, yet it seems that all these excuses are meant to deflect from the fact that some wikipedia users such as Horse Eye's Back are allowed to basically prank post on here unchecked. Thrillydee (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to use your talk page to attack other editors your access to it will be removed. Note that this block is based on technical evidence. If you wish to appeal, follow the instructions, but simply making claims of innocence isn't likely to fly. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]