User talk:Jagz: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Given the longstanding pattern of tendentious editing and [[WP:TPG|talk page abuse]] which you've exhibited relative to the articles on [[race and intelligence]] and closely related subjects, I'm going to implement the 6-month topic ban which was discussed earlier. Specifically, please refrain from editing pages related to [[race and intelligence]], [[dysgenics]], and any loosely associated subjects for the ensuing 6 months. You've done good work elsewhere on Wikipedia, and hopefully that will resume, but your editing on these topics has been disruptive. I will submit this topic ban to [[WP:AN/I]] for outside review and input. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
Given the longstanding pattern of tendentious editing and [[WP:TPG|talk page abuse]] which you've exhibited relative to the articles on [[race and intelligence]] and closely related subjects, I'm going to implement the 6-month topic ban which was discussed earlier. Specifically, please refrain from editing pages related to [[race and intelligence]], [[dysgenics]], and any loosely associated subjects for the ensuing 6 months. You've done good work elsewhere on Wikipedia, and hopefully that will resume, but your editing on these topics has been disruptive. I will submit this topic ban to [[WP:AN/I]] for outside review and input. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I think I deserve a medal for all the bullshit I've had to endure to get anything done on the R&I article. --[[User:Jagz|Jagz]] ([[User talk:Jagz#top|talk]]) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
:I think I deserve a medal for all the bullshit I've had to endure to get anything done on the R&I article. --[[User:Jagz|Jagz]] ([[User talk:Jagz#top|talk]]) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[Image:CGC.jpg|left|62px]] |
|||
Awarded for conspicuous gallantry in sticking to reason and the facts in the face of (t)rolling barrages of fallacious reasoning followed by lily-livered ad hominem attacks, only for the attackers to run for cover behind their superior officers once things get a bit scary. I hope you keep your morale up. Wikipedia desperately needs reaonable people, and the article in question even more so. It shouldn't be like this. --[[User:Plusdown|Plusdown]] ([[User talk:Plusdown|talk]]) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
Revision as of 23:17, 3 June 2008
Hello
Sorry to break your retirement (which is evidently a semi-retirement anyway). I used to edit a lot of physics-related articles, fighting crackpots and the like, as well as trying to remove intelligent design garbage from evolution articles, so I know how tiring fighting on Wikipedia can be: it is a constant - and losing - battle against sophistry.
Please feel free to build up the new article in my userspace...it is a huge task, but I think the current one is broken beyond repair. --Plusdown (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Topic ban from race and intelligence-related articles
Given the longstanding pattern of tendentious editing and talk page abuse which you've exhibited relative to the articles on race and intelligence and closely related subjects, I'm going to implement the 6-month topic ban which was discussed earlier. Specifically, please refrain from editing pages related to race and intelligence, dysgenics, and any loosely associated subjects for the ensuing 6 months. You've done good work elsewhere on Wikipedia, and hopefully that will resume, but your editing on these topics has been disruptive. I will submit this topic ban to WP:AN/I for outside review and input. MastCell Talk 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I deserve a medal for all the bullshit I've had to endure to get anything done on the R&I article. --Jagz (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Awarded for conspicuous gallantry in sticking to reason and the facts in the face of (t)rolling barrages of fallacious reasoning followed by lily-livered ad hominem attacks, only for the attackers to run for cover behind their superior officers once things get a bit scary. I hope you keep your morale up. Wikipedia desperately needs reaonable people, and the article in question even more so. It shouldn't be like this. --Plusdown (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)