User talk:CanuckAnthropologist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] human skin color
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Wikiscribe (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Human Skin Color Map
I don't know if I'd call it consensus, but the human skin color map was removed because a couple users, including myself, agreed that it's outdated and inaccurate. I don't know if I agree with the hastiness with which the map was removed, but the removal was a good faith edit, not vandalism. Take a look at this section of the talk page. I don't really think that there's been very comprehensive discussion on the matter. If you feel that the map has merit, please post there and explain so that a discussion can happen and consensus can be reached. Ketsuekigata (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blond
There was a discussion on the talk page and the consensus was to keep the image. Please discuss it there if you disagree. Regards, Kesälauantait (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit summary for this edit on Blond is We do not have a poll and polls do not overwrite common sense. There is simply not enough space for this pic here. If someone wants to see it they can on its own article. What do you mean by "not enough space"? What kind of space are you referring to? —EncMstr (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. rewinn (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Friendly advice
Hi, just a friendly note, you might like to take a look at our essay regarding tendentious editing. While I'm not accusing you of being tendentious on Blond, some editors may see your actions as such. Edit waring is frowned upon on Wikipedia, though we all fall into the trap every so often. Try to keep cool, and try to understand that if a consensus is reached on the talk page that you disagree with, there is very little you can do about it, especially if you are in a minority of one. You will find it very hard to convince anyone that a single vote for the deletion and numerous votes to keep the image does not represent a consensus decision. On Wikipedia one learns very quickly that one cannot always get their own way, however much they feel they are right and everyone else is wrong. All the best. Alun (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] french people
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:French_people. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't get so fired up on Talk:French_people. These matters have been already discussed at length. The article is not using any ethnicity criteria to pick the people. It's using the criteria from the French government. Accusing other editors of pushing a POV is not going to get this changed, and it doesn't help to get a friendly atmosphere where editing can be done calmly. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3rr on blond
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blond. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —EncMstr (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] blocked
- I have lengthened the block per discussion on WP:ANI. When it expires, try to edit productively and discuss issues on the talk page rather than simply reverting. Trebor (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- My initial 12 hour block was based only on the spate of edit warring at Blond which brought you to ANI. However, now that I have had time to delve into your contribution history and behaviour, I am deeply worried about the single minded and unencyclopedic slant of your edits over time. Not only have you edit warred over wholly unsupported terminologies and categories having to do with human beings, you have been tenditious and disruptive towards putting an overtly racist point of view into a series of articles. This is not only unhelpful from any meaningful anthropological outlook, but it is overwhelmingly disruptive to this collaborative encyclopedia. Truth be told, this block would be indefinite had you been blocked for this before now. If, after this block has expired, you carry on with this kind of editing I will block you indefinitely and most likely call for a community ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
