User talk:Archiloc

September 2014
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm The Gnome. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Somatotype and constitutional psychology with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hi Archiloc, I'm Human10.0. I noticed you made this and this edit to the article on homosexual behaviour in animals but did not write any edit summaries. Please provide edit summaries next time you make any edits. Thanks. —Human10.0 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

June 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for apparently editing Wikipedia purely for the purpose of "correcting" phrasing that you find insufficiently antisemitic, such as here. More subtly perhaps, changing "(non-Jewish) Germans" to "Germans" here, with the edit summary "delete unnecessary" also clarifies what you're all about. As for adding this and removing this, bah. Wikipedia is not for bigotry. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There's been a clear pattern to your edits recently. Your latest one was pretty flagrant:" by anti-semites, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists anyone who so pleases as a signal to target Jews for harassment identify Jews." That wasn't removing bias and it certainly didn't make the article more accurate. The last edit cited was indeed in the source given at the end of the next sentence. As for people considered to be criminals by some, it's true that Nazis and antisemites don't consider their actions criminal, but then this sort of edit is part of your pattern. As was changing "Born into a Jewish family she considers herself secular and non-religiouss" to "A Jewess,she considers herself secular and non-religious" with the edit summary "correcting a periphrastic statement". You aren't trying to make a counterpoint, you're trying to push your antisemitic views into our articles. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you wrote and deleted a post saying that I conceded your point about "alleged" criminal activities. That's a complete misreading of what I wrote. The fact that Nazis might not consider certain activities criminal doesn't affect their actual criminal nature, it's just a reflection on the moral character of Nazis. Doug Weller  talk 13:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)c