User talk:Human Taxonomist

Welcome!

Hello, Human Taxonomist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 08:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

The reviewing process has changed and so it is difficult to do anything other than a single revert. Sorry about that, but keep it in mind and try to get discussion etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

The thing is we already have a main article, Baseball, and also History of Baseball, so any statements about its origin should be in those articles first. Otherwise if someone clicks through they will just be confused. There still seems to be a debate about this, as this book seems to disagree. Get some consensus at those articles first please. Thanks. BTW I couldn't care less about where it was invented, just that our articles are consistent and well sources. We may have to say that there is disagreement if the sources conflict. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles at Baseball and History of baseball clearly mention its first attestation in England, its links and similarities to rounders and other games in England, and its arrival in America with English settlers and colonists in the English colonies (America was founded by the English). Even if it was invented in the English colonies and not in England itself, it was still done so by Englishmen. Human Taxonomist (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to English people, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at English people. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Welsh people, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your latest edit has been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please continue with that discussion. Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Welsh people

Hi Human Taxonomist. I'm sure it was not your intention, but with this edit you have introduced at the very least rudeness if not a personal attack ("he is being obtuse") on another editor. Please be sure to comment on edits not editors ~ subjects not people ~ at all times, most especially when you find yourself in a dispute. I'd suggest that, to be clear that you intended nothing bad, you visit the page and ~~strike out~~ the unpleasantness. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#edit_warring_by_Human_Taxonomist_over_multiple_articles regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? What WP did I violate? I was trying to resolve a disagreement at ANI. Not sure why. I accidentally edited with my IP a few times before creating this account. How does this merit an indefinite block? Apparently, the reason given is "Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse." What?? What "abuse" are you referring to and committed against which user? Posting on talk pages to discuss issues is "abuse"? I did not personally attack anyone. I did not violate 3RR. I am not a sockpuppet. So, I again ask what is this "abuse" you speak of? I have myself been the victim of personal attacks, ganging-up behaviour, lies and abuse by editors at WP:ANI. This is ridiculous, and a serious case of gross misconduct by the blocking administrator. I would add further that I am not a sockpuppet of 'Sprayitchyo'. This seems to be a claim of the administrator. There is no evidence whatsoever of this. There is nothing directly linking me to that person or persons. You are unfairly and unjustly blocking an editor on charges based on nothing but suspicion and circumstantial evidence. Why are you doing this? Human Taxonomist (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The extensive edit warring while logged out leaves a fairly compelling trail of disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

"the extensive edit warring while logged out leaves a fairly compelling trail of disruption." What? I edited and had a few conflicts, but nowhere violated WP:3RR, or took part in any other behaviour to merit an indefinite block. Please provide evidence I committed excessively disruptive edit warring while logged out? I am not "Sprayitchyo" or any other user you are claiming. I only began editing as an IP in November. For example, I personally know two other individuals, one I met here in the Wikipedia community, who edit similar articles as I do. Which IPs are you referring to? Where is your evidence that such IPs are the same persons as myself? I only edited while logged out in November and December (including before I created an account), making only around 10 or 15 edits. Whatever it is your are accusing me of, it does not merit a permanent block, and any claims that do (like claims of sockpuppetry) are false. I have never violated 3RR with this account, or as an IP, and have done nothing but positive editing and attempts to follow procedures for conflict resolution when they arise. What do you want me to do? Human Taxonomist (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Epf2018/CdnGael2018 which are Likely to Sprayitchyo per the filing at the SPI case. I also agree with NRP above...the IP socking is egregious.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2020 (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.

You are not going to waste our time with repeated unblock requests as you've done before with previous accounts. I have revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would've guessed this was Irvine22, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To GoodDay, and also LindsayH who mentioned Irvine22 in the thread at ANI, this editor is 2500 miles from where Irvine22 was editing and the locations are in different countries. It doesn't make it impossible but it may give you a better frame of reference. This one has edited English people before such as this series of edits. He has been in the same general area for at least five years.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping; i've been away from WP for a couple of days and would have missed this. I don't mind if the editor was or was not Irvine ~ i had merely mentioned him as a, sadly accurate, prediction of the route HR was travelling down. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]