User talk:DrPepper47

Welcome!

Hello, DrPepper47 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JOJ ^Hutton 21:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

January 2018

Your addition to Black Panther Party has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. https://books.google.com/books?id=X0TrAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61 General Ization ^Talk 23:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Panther Party. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't resolve a copyright violation just by inserting a citation to the source that you copied while retaining the copied text verbatim. I should template you again for the renewed copyvio, but I believe the larger problem is your edit warring, and Malik is already addressing that with you. General Ization ^Talk 02:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 13:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nations and intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HDI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I amended it. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2018 (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).

DrPepper47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. After taking over a year off Wikipedia and reviewing my editorial history, I would like my block to be reversed. I recognize that the diffs cited against me were irresponsible on my part (save one) and I wish to assure that all my future contributions would be in careful accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Particularly, I understand that: # In my participation at Talk:Race and intelligence, I made greatly erroneous and inappropriate claims without carefully reviewing the subject matter or Wikipedia’s talk page guidelines. Suffering from my own pride, I was too eager to defend my folly rather than learn from it. [1] [2] [3] # My Black Panther Party edits were similarly careless. [4] [5] [6] # My edits to the Confederate and other race-related articles stemmed from an immature view of the topics therein, which I disavow entirely. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] I want to apologize to users MjolnirPants, Malik Shabazz, and General Ization for my actions. However, I want to note several caveats: * I have refrained from editing the BPP article ever since Malik Shabazz and General Ization warned me about my conduct. * All diffs cited in the third point above dated around seven years before I was blocked. I was a very young editor at the time of making those edits, and I have not harbored the beliefs I had circa 2012 since then. * My Merton Thesis diff was appropriate and made in good faith. I edited a sentence that was grammatically flawed, unclear, and appeared to make an uncited claim (ultimately having little bearing on the veracity of the subject.) [14] I shall dispute the charge that I am not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Most of my edits after the summer of 2012 were not egregious like those cited here, and many of them pertained to a variety of subjects such as music, TV, and film. Furthermore, I’ve edited articles such as Whataboutism and Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity to include information that would very much support anti-racist perspectives. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] In fact, I’ve taken down a page (via redirect) that was giving undue weight to a racist fringe ideology. [20] Should my block be reversed, I propose to write a WP:ESSAY, entitled "Editors Have Lives," to advise users from making my mistakes. Having worked in publication recently, I've learned a bit about what it's like to deal with sloppy and opinionated editing. My essential points would be: * In a nutshell: pay attention and be considerate. Other editors should not have to address you for being negligent. * Read the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Other editors have better things to do than deal with your failure to do so. * Read the talk pages of an article thoroughly before posting. Other editors have better things to do than respond to points already addressed in the talk page (especially if refuted a thousand times) or parse through walls of ill-advised text. * Use talk pages properly - they are meant for improving the article, not general discussion of the subject. Other editors have better things to do than have their discussions derailed, parse through irrelevant chatter, or argue over opinions. * Refrain from poking the bear and passive aggression. Don't be a fanatic, a hot head, or a dick. Other editors have better things to do than respond to incivility or POV-pushing. * Observe consensus and avoid edit wars. Other editors have better things to do than resolve excessive revisions to their work. * Be especially considerate with respect to sensitive or controversial articles. Respect and assumption of good faith compose an essential pillar of Wikipedia. Other editors have better things to do than refute offensive and ill-advised comments. If all else fails, you can give me enough WP:ROPE to get blocked again. DrPepper47 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 22:07, 27 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.

Please also beware of WP:WALLOFTEXT. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]