User talk:Dealmeida87
Welcome!
|
December 2019
Please accept
I and the other editors who have had to deal with this same issue elsewhere are not acting out of some racial prejudice but simply because that's how Wikipedia works. We have a policy of
Gourdine et al
As you can see at
- I meant WP:RSN - please put your money where your mouth is - you're happy to make up disgusting falsehoods about me but not to keep complaining and saying I'm wrong without getting input from other experienced editors. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)]
May 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)If this happens again, it will be indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- <ec>I endorse this block and came here to do the same thing. If this recurs, the next block is likely to be permanent. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not just about "disagreeing", because everyone has the right to disagree about anything. It is about using the status of administrator to censor information properly referenced, just because he disagrees with the information entered. I don't think it's the right way to proceed. But you command here and I will resign to the block.
I would add that this administrator, Doug Weller, proceeds in this way - censoring information that he disagrees with or dislikes - in a systematic way. Observe him. There is a lot of really false information here to be suppressed. There is no need to waste time censoring the plurality of legitimate points of view on the most varied subjects. This only impoverishes Wikipedia. Dealmeida87 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Reverting bad edits is never censorship. Saying crazy things as you did on my talk page on the other hand is harassment presumably aimed at silencing me. Note I'm not saying you are crazy, just that the things you accuse me of are. None of the actions you complain of were in my administrative role. The blocking I do of Nazis, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists of any stripe is for me an important part of my role here. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, you may not be crazy, just incompetent. On my talk page you wrote "My contribution, in this case too, has been arbitrarily reversed by you." This was about an edit to Ham (son of Noah) where I inadvertently reverted the editor who actually reverted you, then restored his edit. I wasn't planning to edit that article at all. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Bad editions, for you, mean "editions whose content I don't like".
E1b1a was found in Egyptian mummies, according to peer-reviewed study (Hawass et al., 2012), and you censored this information.
Keita (anthropologist) and Anselin (archaeologist), researchers on Egypt who are very experienced and respected, along with JP Gourdine (also respected and experienced geneticist), made harsh criticisms of the study of Abusir's mummies and you censored this information that I inserted in the article about the history of Egyptian DNA. In the latter case, under the claim that it is a pre-print, your censorship disregarded Wikipedia's own rules on self-published content, which can be considered reliable if "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Isn't that the case with Keita and Anselin?
And in the case of "ham", your purpose was to revert my edition, without realizing that another user had already done this.
My edits aren't bad, you don't like them and don't want them to be made public. For this reason, you censor them systematically, each time under a different excuse. And I'm not the only Wikipedia user to notice this.
I don't censor anything here, I just try to contribute so that there are multiple points of view in the articles.
I don't know what your views on Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Nazism, but your position on African history and African authors is quite clear. And I insist that it's unfortunate that a Wikipedia administrator prevents articles from being enriched with good information and new points of view just because they attack your personal preferences. Dealmeida87 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Bullshit. At "ham" I was simply looking at the edit and my mouse slipped, there clearly was no purpose. I made a mistake and fixed it. Your other charges are just as baseless. Yes, I removed the preprint and as a courtesy, wasted I'm sure, since you months later have decided you know better, raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Do preprints qualify as self-published sources we allow?. I removed your cherry of text from the Hawass article, there's a reason we ask editors to use the summary or discussion section of journal articles. I didn't touch the material you added starting with "Other studies, however, have shown a wide predominance of Near Eastern lineages related to Islamic expansion". I probably would have left the Gourdine stuff except for the use of raw uninterpreted data (which is the cherry-picking point). In every case there are discussion boards where you could raise your issues instead of making unfounded personal attacks. And yes, bad editors pushing a pov do sometimes have trouble with me and other experienced editors. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)