User talk:Terratian

July 2021

Hello, I'm Notfrompedro. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Pseudoarchaeology seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why my edit was made, if you read it you would see that classifying Graham Hancock is NOT a neutral viewpoint of the author, and in fact is an academic judgment against the author. Is this the habit of editors, to ignore well researched corrections? Terratian (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 User talk:Notfrompedro. 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 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you Doug. ----terratian Terratian (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not surprised. For some reason you replied to a year old post by User:Ianmacm (which I doubt he say), and you wrote "Ian, once we can get you to stop practicing pseudo journalism and academia to review new evidence clearly contradicting old dominate theories with your authority to "edit" this page to exclude any reference to "pseudo" anything in regards to Hancocks reputable journalistic review of peer reviewed evidence and what that evidence might imply regarding human civilization prior to the last glacial maximum. Make the edit, or you are absolutely impervious to fact." That's a flagrant violation of WP:AgF and if you can't see that you probably shouldn't be editing here. Also "Apparently some editors are not paying attention to the highly debated moniker/title being ascribed to Hancock by academia, and Wikipedia," and similar comments. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are clearly part of the problem with Wikipedia and are not listening to the substance of my arguments, only the tone--which you are inflecting, not me.@Doug Weller Terratian (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose here

I have looked over your contributions and have seen over 7 years every single substantive contribution you have made is to promote pseudo-scientific ideas.

I am here to ask you what your purpose on this project is? Are you here to help build a encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, or are you here to promote a particular ideology that you subscribe to? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I have taken an interest in a confederacy of editors on Wikipedias staunch desire to call Graham Hancock a "pseudo-scientist". He is clearly just an author and a journalist. Terratian (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates by consensus so if most of the editors here think you are wrong then you have to accept that and move on. Editors who refuse to accept consensus can be seen as disruptive. Users that are only here for a to push a single agenda are generally not long for this project.

Your preferred version of the article does not enjoy consensus and thus will not be implemented. If you continue to push your point of view in this area despite a clear consensus against it then you may be blocked from the subject area. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to stress that the material should be supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). In relation to pseudoscientific topics WP:PARITY can also be used. Graham's writings, or blogs of supporters are not considered reliable. According to WP:PSCI, the policy on pseudoscience, related topics should clearly be described as such. —Paleo Neonate – 13:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

—Paleo Neonate – 13:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that sanctions apply to discussions on talk pages as well. And that outside the discretionary sanctions area, you can be given a routine block from editing, from a particular article or its talk page, all talk pages, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It logically follows that when someone disagrees with a bias classification on Wikipedia an "administrator" jumps in and bans the substantiative content from discussion--you are biased@Doug Weller@PaleoNeonate Terratian (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange way to interpret my telling you that comments such as "Make the edit, or you are absolutely impervious to facta" are uncivil. If you don't like our policies and guidelines, I'm sure you can find something else to do on a website that doesn't have our policies on sourcing and neutral point of view (which is not about being neutral, we are a mainstream encyclopedia). Your choice. If you don't like "Administrator", other terms used to describe people with my software privileges are "sysop" and "janitor". Doug Weller talk 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug WellerWhile I appreciate your obtuseness and obvious disdain for being welcoming to new contributors and prestige for being "janitor" and "sysop". I took a little time and read the linked article, I specifically like how this nomenclature supports the underlying issue, which you seem to consistently sidestep, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Can't wait to hear your next trite retort... Terratian (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Here's my trite retort. I believe the only reason you weren't indefinitely blocked in July was that you stopped editing. Now that you have re-appeared, it's obvious that you are still not here to help build an encyclopedia. You have been blocked indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Does someone that doesn't devote all their free time to editing preclude them from an honest desire to have factual, non-opinionated, information presented on Wikipedia?

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).

Terratian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should not have irritated the "sysop" because if they don't agree with the information that you present they will block your voice and research on Wikipedia. I will always agree with all edits that are made by superior Wikipedians, even when they are incorrect. I will continue to ignore incorrect edits made by anyone that has more editing prestige than I do. Terratian (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2022 (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.

Terratian (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I'm not an administrator and that an article reflecting the bias of reliable sources is not the same as editorializing. Other important parts of the policy are WP:RS, WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, although only an information page, WP:FREE is also relevant... Indefinite blocks are not necessarily infinite, if there are other topics you believe you could contribute to eventually, I suggest to include specifics in an unblock request (taking in consideration WP:NOTTHEM, the block's reason is WP:NOTHERE, maybe it's eventually possible to demonstrate a general interest in the encyclopedia). Editors come from many backgrounds and constructive editing is always welcome, —Paleo Neonate – 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]