User talk:Schwarzschild Point

Welcome!

Hello, Schwarzschild Point! 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) 07:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry 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 Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A point about WP:3RR

From your comments, you might not have read the link. In particular, I wouldn't want you to think that 3 reverts per 24 hours is an entitlement, it's not. And "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." Doug Weller (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I don't know what your problem is but it should be obvious to you by now that I was not edit warring. Schwarzschild Point • 11:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of words of advice

Reading your latest comment to my talk page prompted me to wonder how you were getting on since you started editing from this account. I found the controversy over "Yahweh". The talk page of that article contains well over 4000 words of argument, all of which is about you persistently insisting on your own preferred view in the face of unambiguous consensus against you from several other editors. My advice is to drop the matter. There have been numerous times over the years when I have been completely convinced that consensus in some discussion is simply wrong, but I have left it and moved on to other editing, rather than waste my time trying to persuade people who are not going to be persuaded. Out of the nearly five million articles on Wikipedia there are bound to be many which contain content you would believe was wrong if you saw it, and even if you eventually get your way on one of them, it will reduce only a minute proportion of the content which in your view is wrong; if, instead, you spend the same amount of time on editing in areas where there is no consensus against you, in that same amount of time you could make dozens of improvements. If, on the other hand, you don't eventually get your way, then at best you will have completely wasted your time, and at worst you will so convince other editors that you are disruptive and a waster of time that you will be blocked from editing. Really, it much better to drop an argument once it becomes clear that consensus is against you, no matter how strongly convinced you are that you are right and everyone else wrong.
I suggest thinking carefully about what you write in discussions, to avoid giving other editors the impression that you are not being logical. For example, at one point you wrote that the content of the article Yahweh "assumes all practicing Jews, Christians and Muslims are liars". It seems to me that there are two fallacies there: firstly, equating not assuming that someone is right with assuming that they are wrong, and secondly equating not being right with lying. I may have misunderstood you, but that is how it reads to me; if I have not misunderstood then you need to be more careful about logic, and if I have misunderstood then you need to be more careful about how you express your thoughts, to avoid giving a misleading impression. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable sources about genetics?

Hi, Schwarzschild Point,

I was wondering if you know of any good current sources that fit the Wikipedia reliable sources content guideline about genetics, as I see you have recently edited an article about that topic. The talk page of that article currently asks for suggestions of those sources, so I hope that if you have something to contribute to that discussion, you will post your suggestions there. I see from your contribution history that you have been busy recently on some other articles that I have never had on my watchlist, so I don't have a strong sense of what previous work you have done on Wikipedia articles on genetics. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions fo reliable sources you have. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WeijiBaikeBianji: It depends, what were you looking to source? Schwarzschild Point • 13:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article you edited recently, Race and genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 14:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - Race and intelligence

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Sanger on Race

Hello, SP, I have a question about your most recent edit to the article on Margaret Sanger. You indicated in the talk that you agreed with the consensus about removing the 1st paragraph on Australian Aboriginals but then you reinstated that very paragraph to the article and removed the second paragraph. Is this what you meant to do? Can you undo your edit and return to the Sanger talk page so that we may understand and discuss your intentions. We look forward to your contribution. Sincerely, Jason from nyc (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah the second paragraph was dreck. The citations in the first were fine to place it in the controversies section. Schwarzschild Point • 13:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations in the 1st paragraph were to primary documents when Wikipedia requires secondary sources if we are to avoid original research. Have you read the section on primary and WP:SECONDARY sources? It says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Take a look at the 1st paragraph and tell me if you see secondary sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the first warrants removal. The second featured synthetic claims that were not well referenced; I do not see that in the first. Schwarzschild Point • 14:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Margaret Sanger that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

As a good practise, I like to inform you that another editor has filed a sockpuppet investigation against you. You can find that request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrononem. The Banner talk 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]