User talk:Gorlionolio

Human rights expert and Professor Emeritus at your service.

A brief summary of some important site policies and guidelines

I see that someone's already tried to explain the situation to you but I'm still going to give you a summary of some site rules that explain why your edits to Great Replacement have been reverted, and why you need to stop trying to make those kinds of edits here.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology -- especially white supremacist bullshit.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see that you didn't read any of that and so didn't see that I had won the argument. Either way I am not editing nearly as comprehensively as I had last time. I am simply change one word to be scientifically accurate. Please just be honest with me if you have a political goal in reverting my modest edit. Gorlionolio (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You posted last, which you interpreted at the last word. What you said then (as now) had nothing to do with site policy or academic sources, so you were in the wrong as far as those are concerned. Also "I won the argument" is not an attitude we want around here. It's pretty obvious you are the one editing the article with an agenda, as you have tried to whitewash an article about a white supremacist conspiracy theory to make it look more appealing. Honestly, I don't know why you haven't been blocked yet.

Just stop editing the article, final warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sound a lot like censorship. And a threat. Gorlionolio (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia gives views due weight according to their status in academia. The article cites plenty of academic sources, you've cited none for your revisions.

Wikipedia is a private institution, we're allowed to do as we please with our site. You need to abide by our social contracts that our members have formed through consensus. Are you, or are you not, interested in abiding by those social contracts? Yes or no? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect to be threatened or to have abusive language directed at me for such a simple edit. Is 'Indigenous European' really such a threat to your senses?Gorlionolio (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A concept you need to be aware of before asking if other people feel threatened, and one of the site's foundational social contracts you need to keep in mind (which would have also lead you to understand whether or not my language is truly abusive).

Again: are you, or are you not, interested in abiding by the social contracts formed by the consensus of this site's members? It's a simple yes or no question. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is the truth and human rights. I don't answer loaded questions, respond to threats, or converse with people who use curse words and expect to be taken seriously. The only exception is if I am doing a case study of a an admitted human rights violator. I would be glad to interview you if that is the case though. Gorlionolio (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a loaded question. One can be interested in other things and still interested in respecting this community's social contracts. Are you or are you not? For example, we have a policy against personal attacks, such as suggesting (without evidence) that another user has committed human rights violations. If you continue to be unable to say that you're willing to play nice with others, we'll have to assume that the answer is not yes. 23:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the article you linked to as an example of "social contracts", it actually you who are violating them. You are assuming bad faith in my edit. Gorlionolio (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made was the sort of edit that a white supremacist conspiracy theorist would carry out, since it is whitewashing a white supremacist conspiracy theory with euphemisms. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean that we have to wait until someone literally says they're a Nazi before we can deal with users for carrying out edits the Nazis would cheer on. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am respecting indigenous peoples. You are the one who is throwing around accusations of white supremacist and neo-nazi sympathies. You are the one who has censored me for human rights advocacy. You are the one who is being outrageously out of line, disrespectful, dehumanizing, abusive, controlling, manipulative, and generally hate filled. You have nothing but your own prejudiced opinion to back up your assertion. To be clear again, You are the one who reverted my edit, started hounding me on my talk page, used accusations that have nothing to do with my edit, used obscene language and threats on my talk page, and now unilaterally blocked me. This will be made aware to the human rights community I assure you. Gorlionolio (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't even suggest the possibility of respecting our site's social contracts (after being repeatedly asked)

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gorlionolio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Read the transcript please. Gorlionolio (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. No, please summarise why you believe the block is invalid, here. I'll note that had your argument above been convincing, the blocking admin would have lifted the block. Yamla (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gorlionolio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The original censor/blocker violated community guidelines by assuming bad faith with an edit I made several days earlier. We discussed the topic briefly on my talk page and he retaliated by blocking me when I pointed this out.Gorlionolio (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for your own conduct, and you should address that. See WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.