User talk:Von Clown

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read
Doug Weller talk 10:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to discussion on article talk pages
You've got to stop the accusations. Either stick to discussions about how to improve the article and avoid discussing other editors or expect to be blocked or topic banned. Follow WP:AgF and WP:Civil. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I posted a list of definitions of race, from biologists. What are the chances you're going to edit them in? Von Clown (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * None. I'm not familiar enough with the article. I was concerned about your behavior, not the content of the article. There are many articles that have ended up on my watchlist that I don't edit. Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history at Race (human categorization) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   11:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Oh wait, you people know sod all about biology and only parrot Marxist gibberish from your fake science anthropology departments" is enough to establish that you're not here to edit constructively and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. No mind-reading needed.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's entirely accurate. They have censored biological arguments from the page. They need to be put in. It is your regulars that are violating NPOV. And you're blocking me because of what, a mean tone? The first stage is establishing the mainstream view in the relevant field, I was doing that before you blocked me. Von Clown (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)