User talk:Raffelate

R&I

Hi Raffelate, welcome to Wikipedia! You're certainly not the first editor to identify problems with Wikipedia misrepresenting sources on the issues of race and intelligence. See the discussion from 2021 on my talk page here[[1]] for one example. As noted in that discussion, consensus is opposed to even the relatively mundane idea that there's any resistance or taboo against research into race and intelligence, despite that fact being extremely well-documented.[2][3][4][5]

Given these issues are longstanding and highly contentious, coming in guns blazing so to speak isn't advisable. I'd recommend you start by contributing to non-contentious articles, in order to gain more experience and understanding of the nuances of editing and consensus-building on Wikipedia before wading into more contentious areas. Walk softly upon the earth and she will bless you with her grace. Happy editing :) Stonkaments (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some good advice in that second paragraph, and I'd certainly encourage you to try editing constructively in other areas, I'd like to cut off any ideas that anybody might have that one can build clout here and then cash in that clout by editing subtly but tendentiously on one's hobby horse topics. Attempts to falsely legitimise Scientific Racism as contemporary science will never be accepted no matter how artfully disguised.

Raffelate, If you have any other interests which are compatible with an encyclopaedia then by all means try working on articles about those but if you are only here to promote a specific fringe viewpoint then it would save everybody a lot of trouble if you just stopped. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication; nowhere did I hint at anything to the effect of building "clout" to later cash it in on subversive editing in favor of a specific viewpoint. Please WP:Assume good faith. Contentious articles are simply hard to navigate for a newcomer, so it's better to come back after gaining experience on more mellow articles first. Contrarian viewpoints and contributions are always welcome on Wikipedia, if they follow the sources, especially on topics where the consensus has a well-documented history of misrepresenting said sources. Stonkaments (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nowhere did I hint at anything to the effect of building "clout" to later cash it in on subversive editing in favor of a specific viewpoint.

This is exactly what your initial comment suggests. You are right, though, you are not hinting at it; rather you are simply matter-of-factly stating it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I see from reading your kindly provided leads that Wikipedia is now edited according to the consensus among Wikipedia editors rather than academics.[6] How very odd. Raffelate (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the consensus among Wikipedia editors that determines how to interpret the sources written by academics and then compose an article based on those facts. This has always been the case; read WP:CONSENSUS. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

I second the other user above. I'll expand: If and only if you're not just here to stirr up trouble, I am always willing to explain relevant policy to you. Please don't address me on another user's talk page again, though... Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I am absolutely not here to stir up trouble, and am entirely in good faith with a view to improving the project. If I seem abrasive, frankly it is because I am disgusted by what I see as brazen policy violations by a clique which appears to be protected by staff. You do not need to "explain policy to me", I have been editing Wikipedia for twenty years and am highly familiar with policy. And another thing, the audacity of asking to "comment on content not contributors" while collapsing my comments on content and calling me a "troll". Please do not bother reopening anything, all of this will go in my forthcoming report. For what good that will do around here. Raffelate (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're as experienced as you say, you ought to be aware that Stonkaments and Biohistorian15 both probably agree with you about article content more than they disagree. So do I, for that matter. I think what others have problem with is not your arguments themselves, it's your abrasive attitude. Stonkaments in particular has tried to address the same problem of misrepresented sources that you've complained about, see his comments in these places: [7] [8] If you could learn to be more collegial and stop threatening to make reports about people, maybe we could work together and actually do something about that issue. 64.127.212.41 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Mikemikev per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]