User talk:Zerophases

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Logan River Academy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Logan River Academy. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Logan River Academy was changed by Zerophases (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.908085 on 2018-10-31T03:13:10+00:00

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:. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to inform the members of Anonymous that want to get this school shut down where they may get proof of solitary confinement? Zerophases (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I would get blocked so quickly. I thought that what I had written would at least be up long enough for anyone involved with Anonymous to read the request and get in touch with me. Since then, I have figured out a means of getting in touch with Anonymous indirectly, and won't be vandalizing the page again.

As an aside, as a former student of that school if I wanted to add more information about the abuses there what would be the proper method of doing so?
 * Whatever that was that you were trying to do was about the worst use of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I was just checking racialism, as years ago I remember reading about Nietzsche taking a racialist position, while clearly arguing against racism. The current article is mostly based off of dictionary definitions, and addresses, very poorly, the historical perspective present in the world view. Most of the founders of the thinking were by no means racists, in the sense of round people up or discriminate based on race; but, more along the lines of individuals applying evolutionary theory and natural selection as a logical conclusion of disparate human populations reproducing for thousands of years with little contact with each other. So, by their logic it makes sense that races have traits they propagate based on limited understanding of genetics, and the theory of evolution gaining popularity. Racialism itself is essentially a dead ideology, with few practitioners as it has been replaced with the increased precision of modern evolutionary theories.

Also, the responses to the entire talk page seem purely to be motivated on political ideologies based around social justice; while, a more skeptical / scientific mind set, which is more accurate, objectively, would go into the nuance between current world views and past. It's my understanding Racialists, in general, were used to support Racist theories; but, the process required immense simplification of extremely complex theories to be compatible with the world view of the racist.

The argumentation referring to a dictionary definition for racialism is engaging in the fallacy of Argumentum ad Dictionarium, (I know a different source is needed for the talk page. This just does a great job of explaining the concept). While there are ways for debaters to agree on the meaning of terms in a technical sense, it's more along of the lines of a dialogue between opposing view points. (the talk page) It would make sense to say, "Today's popular opinion is that racialism and racism are equivalent," and cite sources. Pointing to the dictionary and arguing something is another thing, makes little sense as the meaning of words change all the time while the underlying concepts in the world are still the same.

I don't have an interest either in vandalizing Wikipedia pages, either, as the edit gets pulled almost immediately, which I have learned through experience and from watching Internet Comment Etiquette. It's literally not worth my time to vandalize a Wikipedia page, which ever audience I was trying to vandalize a page for will never see the edit.

Why will my block not be removed despite me having solid reasoning for why using definitions of a term to argue two things as equivalent requires invoking of a logical fallacy? The talk page is clearly against it, as well, and the Appeal to Definition is a well known logical fallacy, which has not been mentioned on that page.

This entire paragraph should be deleted: "According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, racialism is 'another term for racism'.[10] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racialism as 'a theory that race determines human traits and capacities' and defines 'racism' as 'a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race'.[11]"