User talk:Spork Wielder: Difference between revisions
Tag: Reverted |
Undid revision 1012506032 by Generalrelative (talk) I told you to stay off my talk page |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
While I will not defend all of [[User:Spork Wielder|Spork Wielder]]'s conduct (calling other editors "intellectual mediocrities" certainly isn't productive), I do want note that their responses were not entirely unprovoked. The "intellectual mediocrities" comment was in response to the insinuation that editors are acting in bad faith, holding beliefs "because of errors such as overgeneralization, cherry picking, wishful thinking, or for ideological reasons". Additionally, their earlier criticism of [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] was well-founded: they ''did'' cherry-pick from a source, failing to include the context that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded"; and they ''did'' misrepresent that source as an editorial, when in fact it was not. These errors may have been unintentional, but I don't see how it was a violation of [[WP:NPA]] to call them out.<br>I urge ''both'' sides to please remain civil and dial down the intensity level in this discussion, so we can work together and improve the article together. [[User:Stonkaments|Stonkaments]] ([[User talk:Stonkaments|talk]]) 18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
While I will not defend all of [[User:Spork Wielder|Spork Wielder]]'s conduct (calling other editors "intellectual mediocrities" certainly isn't productive), I do want note that their responses were not entirely unprovoked. The "intellectual mediocrities" comment was in response to the insinuation that editors are acting in bad faith, holding beliefs "because of errors such as overgeneralization, cherry picking, wishful thinking, or for ideological reasons". Additionally, their earlier criticism of [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] was well-founded: they ''did'' cherry-pick from a source, failing to include the context that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded"; and they ''did'' misrepresent that source as an editorial, when in fact it was not. These errors may have been unintentional, but I don't see how it was a violation of [[WP:NPA]] to call them out.<br>I urge ''both'' sides to please remain civil and dial down the intensity level in this discussion, so we can work together and improve the article together. [[User:Stonkaments|Stonkaments]] ([[User talk:Stonkaments|talk]]) 18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
:{{re|Stonkaments}} As I stated on the article talk page: {{tq|After this my engagement with specious argumentation will be limited to repeating the results of the RfC and reporting sanctionable behavior if necessary.}} These warnings are an example of the latter, including the warning about abuse of the NPA template on my talk page. I will not engage with you on the substance of your claims about what the sources say, since 1) this is not the appropriate forum for that, and 2) they have already been ''thoroughly'' debunked, as several other editors have recently explained to you. Your attempt at [[bothsidesism]] here is also unhelpful. There is no equivalence between Spork Wielder's behavior and the fact that I have warned them about that behavior. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:10, 16 March 2021
February 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Steve Sailer. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 10:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Important Notice
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.
Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 10:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Important Notice
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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Spork Wielder, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Spork Wielder! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC) |
March 2021
While I will not defend all of Spork Wielder's conduct (calling other editors "intellectual mediocrities" certainly isn't productive), I do want note that their responses were not entirely unprovoked. The "intellectual mediocrities" comment was in response to the insinuation that editors are acting in bad faith, holding beliefs "because of errors such as overgeneralization, cherry picking, wishful thinking, or for ideological reasons". Additionally, their earlier criticism of Generalrelative was well-founded: they did cherry-pick from a source, failing to include the context that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded"; and they did misrepresent that source as an editorial, when in fact it was not. These errors may have been unintentional, but I don't see how it was a violation of WP:NPA to call them out.
I urge both sides to please remain civil and dial down the intensity level in this discussion, so we can work together and improve the article together. Stonkaments (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)