User talk:66.133.207.244

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Racial purity. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Racial purity. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop hand.svg

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Interbreeding, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Octagon-warning.svg

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. TigerShark 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Black people on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop hand.svg

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact? Where?[edit]

It is a fact that when you take two different types and breed them, the expressed evolutionary traits of the resulting offspring are less well adapted to either environment than either of it's parents due to the mixing of their genes.

Where's these "facts"? Killfest2 12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I revert your edits because they all violate the core policy of Wikipedia:No original research. So until you can find yourself some reliable sources to cite from, and also stick to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View as well, don't expect any of your contentious edits to last very long on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you can start the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process; but I can guarantee you that as long as you ignore Wikipedia policy, you won't get far with anyone there either. PS: Please get yourself an account and sign your own posts.  Netsnipe  (Talk)  12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Why did you remove my changes?[edit]

Stop messing with my posts. They are not vandalism and I insist that you leave me and my posts alone.

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talkcontribs) .

These are not good faith edits they are blatant attempts at vandalisng and/or trolling by inserting racist nonsense. Assuming good faith has its limits and you are clearly exceeding them. TigerShark 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to contribute by providing sourced fact or cited research, then please feel free to do so. But your personal views have no place in articles. TigerShark 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In reference to edits on Netsnipe's and TigerShark's talk pages[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen up Mr. Snipe[edit]

I have no desire to be involved in your community. I do NOT enjoy going back and forth over stupid comments or to educate individuals such as yourself. I was, and still am trying to post factual information that people have a right to know. If you disagree with something I've said, we can discuss it but YOU are the one who is vandalizing my comments.

Here is the post that I made for TigerShark and it applies equally to you so read it and STOP messing with my posts:

"vandalizing and/or trolling by inserting racist nonsense"

Obviously you don't know Wikipedia guidelines at all.. it's not vandalism. You are vandalizing my comments, repeatedly and need to be stopped. Just because you are ignorant of genetics does not give you the right to vandalize that which you don't understand.

You want me to prove that a mixed race individual does not posses an optimal proportion of dominant evolutionary adaptations? that's silly. please consult someone with knowledge of genetics before you make any changes to my posts, then cite who disagrees, what they disagree with and their qualifications otherwise YOU are the vandal.

I suspect that someone with the name TigerShark, is a 14yr old white kid who does not have a high school education but has managed to get admin rights on a website because he does not have real people skills.

Further, racism is ok. It's ok for black people to support each other. It's ok for Jews to support each other, it's ok for women to support each other AND it'd ok for WHITE MEN to support ourown kind. Racism, is historiclly part of humanity. If you think you are not racist, you simply don't know yourself. Ask an adult. You are full of prejudice, just as my comment about your name and who I think you are from your name.

What I am saying in my posts, is factually valid, is intended to help people understand the need to preserve our naturally selected heritage. YOU are trying to destroy what nature has created by endorsing a racist agenda of self hate and self destruction.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TigerShark#foolish_child

Please note that not once have I issued you with any vandalism warnings unlike TigerShark. I have been issuing you with Neutral Point of View (NPOV) warnings. I am not vandalising those articles which you have edited, but I am removing unverified comments. So either you start citing from Wikipedia:Reliable sources in order to abide by Wikipedia:NPOV or you can risk longer bans since you are refusing to be a cooperative member of the Wikipedia community. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia != free speech[edit]

Wikipedia is not American and it is not a publisher of original thought. Reread First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it protects the United States Government from infringing on your right to free speech. It doesn't restrict us from reserving the right to censor you if you refuse to abide by our community's Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be patronizing. I know the US Constitution. And I know the country that developed, built and controls the Internet. You ignored the second half of my statement to try and lecture me when you are the one using the Internet that we built, don't try and lecture us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talkcontribs) 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears that your knowledge of constitutional law is about as lacking as your grasp of anthropology and genetics Deleuze 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What would you like verified?[edit]

What does NetSnipe want me to provide documentation of? are you sure, that you simply don't like/agree with the message and that this has nothing to do with facts?

You want me to prove that a mixed race individual does not posses an optimal proportion of dominant evolutionary adaptations?

Ok, here is genetics 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_relationship

or better yet, skip the science and read this:

Here is an analogy, when children fingerpaint with reds and yellows and blues, they take different colors and mix them on the page, when they are done, what color is left? only ugly brown mud and once the colors are mixed, you can never get the beautiful colors back again. This is why adults must take charge to make sure that the evolutionary features, colors and diversity of humanity survive our own ignorance, self hate and self destructive nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so you're telling me that Animal husbandry and Horticulture are all lies? I wonder how far human civilization could have come without the benefits of cross-breeding! I now refer you to the [American Anthropological Association's] position on race: "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction... Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity... in the human species." --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Warning[edit]

Stop hand.svg

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Daniel.Bryant (aka Killfest2) 11:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Spamming of talk pages[edit]

You are not permitted to send multiple copies of the same, or similar, message to multiple talk pages in future. Do not do it again. ЯEDVERS 11:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One week block[edit]

Due to this ([1]) and many other rude edit summaries and messages, you have been blovked for a week.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)