User talk:Zerophases
October 2018
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Logan River Academy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Logan River Academy. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
- If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place
{{Help me}}on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Logan River Academy was changed by Zerophases (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.908085 on 2018-10-31T03:13:10+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Zerophases (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
how else should I inform anonymous about where to get evidence? Zerophases (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQLQuery me! 03:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
How else am I supposed to inform the members of Anonymous that want to get this school shut down where they may get proof of solitary confinement? Zerophases (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Zerophases (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Won't vandilize page again Zerophases (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your mere assurance is not sufficient. Your edits and responses below indicate you were never here to contribute to this project and as such there is no benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you. To have any chance at being unblocked, you will need to describe what it is that you want to edit, including describing a specific edit that you want to make- and you will also need to explain why we should trust that you won't misuse Wikipedia again. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
I wasn't aware that I would get blocked so quickly. I thought that what I had written would at least be up long enough for anyone involved with Anonymous to read the request and get in touch with me. Since then, I have figured out a means of getting in touch with Anonymous indirectly, and won't be vandalizing the page again.
As an aside, as a former student of that school if I wanted to add more information about the abuses there what would be the proper method of doing so?
- Whatever that was that you were trying to do was about the worst use of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Zerophases (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Want to contribute to the talk page on racialism, and I address my lack of interest in vandalizing a page again. Zerophases (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were told to provide a specific example of an edit you planned to make. You have not done so, therefore there are no grounds for considering an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
I was just checking racialism, as years ago I remember reading about Nietzsche taking a racialist position, while clearly arguing against racism. The current article is mostly based off of dictionary definitions, and addresses, very poorly, the historical perspective present in the world view. Most of the founders of the thinking were by no means racists, in the sense of round people up or discriminate based on race; but, more along the lines of individuals applying evolutionary theory and natural selection as a logical conclusion of disparate human populations reproducing for thousands of years with little contact with each other. So, by their logic it makes sense that races have traits they propagate based on limited understanding of genetics, and the theory of evolution gaining popularity. Racialism itself is essentially a dead ideology, with few practitioners as it has been replaced with the increased precision of modern evolutionary theories.
Also, the responses to the entire talk page seem purely to be motivated on political ideologies based around social justice; while, a more skeptical / scientific mind set, which is more accurate, objectively, would go into the nuance between current world views and past. It's my understanding Racialists, in general, were used to support Racist theories; but, the process required immense simplification of extremely complex theories to be compatible with the world view of the racist.
The argumentation referring to a dictionary definition for racialism is engaging in the fallacy of Argumentum ad Dictionarium, (I know a different source is needed for the talk page. This just does a great job of explaining the concept). While there are ways for debaters to agree on the meaning of terms in a technical sense, it's more along of the lines of a dialogue between opposing view points. (the talk page) It would make sense to say, "Today's popular opinion is that racialism and racism are equivalent," and cite sources. Pointing to the dictionary and arguing something is another thing, makes little sense as the meaning of words change all the time while the underlying concepts in the world are still the same.
I don't have an interest either in vandalizing Wikipedia pages, either, as the edit gets pulled almost immediately, which I have learned through experience and from watching Internet Comment Etiquette. It's literally not worth my time to vandalize a Wikipedia page, which ever audience I was trying to vandalize a page for will never see the edit.
Zerophases (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had a specific edit for the Racialism page in my four paragraphs above, which was deleting the reference to the dictionary as what Racialism is, as it is factually incorrect. The link to Rationalwiki and references to dictionary definitions for describing an abstraction goes into why Wikipedia is wrong for having the definition it has. I cannot make that edit though as in order to make it I need to be unblocked to engage on the talk page and then apply the edit. If a moderator agrees after I place my edit, on the talk page, for why the definition reference should be dropped then I would apply the edit. I do also want to make references to Nietzsche's theories on Racialism, but he does not use that specific word, while describing the same concept; but, that would come after I am unblocked as it requires a much longer discussion on the talk page first. Actually, the page on Nietzsche most likely explains his views on race. No superior race, but each has different inherent skill sets, which is a philosophical reaching for the theory of genetics, which was called Racialism when people still believed in Racialism. Racialism is not current so the definition uses Racialism differently from what Racialism is historically. Today, they're equivalent in most peoples eyes, but there's a very fine difference most neglect. These fine differences in categories are extremely important. The difference is many Racialist theories make no claims to racial superiority, just differences between people, which can be seen just by looking around yourself as you walk down the street. Now, when a Racist reads works of Racialism or even Darwin they'll see them as supporting Racialism. All I'm saying is referencing the dictionary definition on a Wikipedia article is extremely poor rhetorically and that page fails to achieve Wikipedia's goals with how it is currently formatted, as it clearly violates Wikipedia's mission statement by having an article, which violates this from "Your First Article:" Advocacy and controversial material Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic. The article is not addressing Racialism neutrally by the fact it references dictionary definition on both being the same, while there were clear differences between people that believed in Racialism and people that believed in Racism during the time period when each were popular. Zerophases (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have failed to demonstrate any understanding of what we are doing here or how Wikipedia works; WP:NOTHERE still applies. I am also revoking talk page access. kingboyk (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Why will my block not be removed despite me having solid reasoning for why using definitions of a term to argue two things as equivalent requires invoking of a logical fallacy? The talk page is clearly against it, as well, and the Appeal to Definition is a well known logical fallacy, which has not been mentioned on that page.
This entire paragraph should be deleted:
According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, racialism is "another term for racism".[10] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racialism as "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities" and defines "racism" as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".[11]