User talk:Bogestra Bob

Welcome!

Hello, Bogestra Bob! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 20:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Routine but important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 07:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, but unless I'm mistaken I haven't said anything about "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour". Bogestra Bob (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You commented at Talk:Race (human categorization). Look at the top of that page. That article is covered by the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow WP:AgF

Comments such as "Oh dear, you write this, frankly, horseshit, " and " In addition it was my pleasure to inform Wikipedia editors who referenced "the literature" apparently without looking at the literature" are unacceptable andnterfer with civil and collaborative editing and discussion. If you don't, it's possible for me to block you from the talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Doug, I'm sure the problem is me saying "horseshit" rather than me saying things that go against your equality worldview. Bogestra Bob (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love it when an editor doubles down. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a huge favor and keep your thinly veiled threats off my talk page? Thanks. Bogestra Bob (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whose sock please?

Hi, Bogestra Bob. Whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

August 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. firefly ( t · c ) 21:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bogestra Bob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock of anybody. I guess this is what happens to anyone that questions the leftist narrative. I was trying to make your encyclopedia less of an embarrassment, more accurate, less political propaganda. Bogestra Bob (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear that the reason for the block is valid. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bogestra Bob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Which is? Bogestra Bob (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

firefly ( t · c ) 10:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]