User talk:Ckoperniak

Welcome!
Hello, Ckoperniak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Megaman en m (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Alert
– bradv  🍁  16:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Social distancing
Before you change every occurrence of social distancing to distancing on social distancing, please get concensus on the talk page first, as your changes conflict with previous implied consensus by editing. Peaceray (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Social distancing, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see MOS:FIRST. Peaceray (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Social distancing. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. – bradv  🍁  16:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Social distancing, you may be blocked from editing. Peaceray (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. – bradv  🍁  16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why my editing has been blocked. How is it that user Peaceray is still (presumably) able to edit? This is very unfair and it is inappropriate for Bradv to takes sides. Rest assured, moving forward I will not engage in any more publications or edits. I refuse to be a part of a community that treats its members this way. Wikipedia has demonstrated itself to be corrupt and insincere in its mission of the advancement of knowledge. For a long time I have believed in this objective, and have enjoyed accessing its submissions. As I no longer trust this organization, nor see the same value in it that I once did, I will not be supporting it in any way. Please don’t solicit me for a donation again. Ckoperniak (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You were blocked due to disruptive editing & violation of the manual of style (see warnings above). Furthermore, you failed to add edit summaries & when asked to discuss your changes on the talk page, you ignored that.
 * When your block ends, I invite you to discuss your proposed edits at Talk:Social distancing, rather than unilaterally making edits without regard to consensus.
 * Peaceray (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hi Ckoperniak! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Whiteness studies that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Definitely not a minor edit. Ckoperniak (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Important notice
- Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand and agree. But the questions remains how this was permitted on the Wikipedia platform to begin with. This is clearly hate speech being disguised as academia. Ckoperniak (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't really tell if you are saying white privilege is a myth, systemic racism doesn't exist or W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, David Roediger, etc. are something other than serious scholars. It doesn't really matter as none of the options are something I dignify with more of a response than perhaps suggesting some reading for you.
 * Negating the entire lede paragraph of an article as you did is not productive.
 * You disagree with the article. Reliable sources say you are wrong. We will report what the reliable sources say, not what you believe. "...whiteness studies, a field that examines the structures that produce white privilege." -- Genzlinger, Neil. November 14, 2019, "Noel Ignatiev, 78, Persistent Voice Against White Privilege, Dies". New York Times. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, I fail to see how adding "nonsensical" to the lead somehow fixes that supposed issue . CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was two "nonsensical"s, a "pseudoscientific" and some scare quotes. They're at the wrong project. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The conversation continues as to whether ‘white privilege’ is an actual phenomenon or myth. Good arguments have been presented by both sides of the debate. As per systemic racism, doubt no longer exists that, like smallpox, it was eliminated in the West many years ago. Why it continues to be discussed is a question for individuals employed by the mainstream media to answer. Individual instances of racism, another matter altogether, still plague society unfortunately. I have looked into some (not all) of the publications of the scholars you have listed and without exception they lack the evidence and rigor characteristic of legitimate academia. Indeed, to a greater degree they resemble the philosophical works of science fiction cult writers L Ron Hubbard and Jim Marrs. Ckoperniak (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I will not be having that discussion with you. It's a 300 level class. You'd need the prerequisites first.
 * I will withhold suggestions I would like to make that would speed you along your course. You'll find them all on your own. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I don’t need to discuss it either. I’ll only add that pseudoscientific hate-inspired drivel posing as academic research goes against Wikipedia’s mission statement of *quality* knowledge being made freely available to the public. Prerequisites such as Finger Painting 101 and How to Effectively Throw a Temper Tantrum 201? 😂 Ckoperniak (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd need one of two 100 level classes we jokingly call "Intro to Fundamental Principles" and then either SOC 217 or a strong recommendation (I got someone in last year with a few tangentially related history and anthropology classes.) Buh-bye. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)