User talk:Darwin1986

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm AbigailAbernathy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to The global bell curve, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 03:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the 2008 book "The Global Bell Curve" already has a personal wiki page. If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Bell_Curve you can see it. So the automatic redirection to "The bell curve" should be deleted. --Darwin1986 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Race Differences in Intelligence (book). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Please refrain from accusing others of vandalizing the article when they refer to talkpage consensus. If you disagree, use the talkpage to defend your case instead of continued reverts. Bjelleklang - talk 08:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This table has to be in the article. I don't have consideration for leftists who don't even read this book and just want to censor it. I have spoken on the talk, showing that contrary to some affirmations, this book receive large positive reviews from more than 50 university professors. If you censor me, you just play the game of the anti-racist ideology, don't try to explain that it is normal, it is just vendalism. Darwin1986 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend that you know whether people have read the book or not, or that you know that they want to "censor" it. Reading tip: WP:CONSENSUS. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing, including violating WP:3RR at Race Differences in Intelligence (book), personal attacks and non-neutral edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]