User talk:Dan27032

September 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Rsk6400, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Eggar's School—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eggar's School. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Leoprix (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at African diaspora, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Irish slaves myth, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Please do not blank pages. It helps no one. JustAnAmateurEditor1 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only did so in protest to the blatant bias and political agenda which was evidently a pathetic attempt to reinforce the nonsensical notion of white privilege. Not only do I detest people pushing for white privilege but as someone with Irish ancestry reading some smug git attempting to invalidate and deny the historical fact that Irish were sent to the caribbean as slaves is abhorrent and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for that article Dan27032 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of the blatant bias in all 4 of those articles. Race as a social construct might not be valid but it is widely accepted that humans expanded out of Africa, developed into different ethnic groups which dominate(d) different regions, and share common physical traits with one another as an evolutionary adaptation to their climate of origin. That isn't a good thing or a bad thing it's just a fact, it doesn't give them intellectual advantages or disadvantages. That notion doesn't make people unequal and there is literally nothing wrong with that simple observation.

Historical false presumptions about their behavioural traits, perceived inferiority and questions regarding their abilities might be wrong but the very fact that we all have our own different genepool which goes back 10s of thousands of years isn't. Wanting to know information about different races and what makes us as humans different isn't a bad thing, because we are different, in ways which are worth appreciating instead of looking down one another for. The world of science doesn't all 100% support this disproval so talking like they do is just insufferable, so that is why I aim to remove all of the impartiality Dan27032 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following top-tier academic sources is not 'blatant bias'. Deleting materials because they conflict with your personal views of the matter like that is disruptive. You should not do so again. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even look like you read anything I said after the first sentence. But no what is blatant bias is filling an article intended to inform people on different races around the world with all kinds of sources pushing an agenda, instead of letting there be balance and impartiality. It's quite obvious that your need to emphasise on how OBSOLETE and DISPROVEN it is, has everything to do with your personal views Dan27032 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to have, nor should we have 'balance and impartiality' between mainstream science and other views, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions you cited aren't anymore authoritative, it's just one school of thought within the world of science. Instead of treating it like it's just one set of beliefs among others you treat it like it's a widely accepted fact when it isn't Dan27032 (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Alan Templeton, source no. 40 of Mongoloid. That text demonstrates why humans are different while still belonging to one biological race. There are of course many other texts doing so, but I like this one because it is easy to comprehend. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read my original response beyond just the sentence where I say I'm sick of the blatant bias and tell me why I'm wrong in what I say. Because as I said in that while I understand race has no meaning or impact on human beings and thier abilities, the usage of the word still has meaning to differentiate between people with differing ancestral origins which is why it isn't "obsolete" Dan27032 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may shock you, but Templeton is also not authoritative and is contested by many other scientists. He is of the opinion that race does not have a biological reality. You can include both perspectives in this article. To accuse one person of deleting things that don't align with their personal views and then respond with your personal preference of scientist that has their own ideological leanings is so arrogant. Wiki geeks suck! McGurkus (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Anthrpological Association has had debates on the topic of the reality of race even after their statement on race was published. The statement is obviously the product of the political climate, to not see that is willfully blind. Simply look up the AAA's debate with Nicholas Wade and Augstin Fuentes on YouTube about A Troublesome Inheritance. The science is not settled. It is disingenuous and dishonest to claim so. McGurkus (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan is right here. There is absurd bias. Arguments over the biological realities of race are not at all settled and to write so definitively as is done in this article is misleading at best. The sources cited do not settle the topic and should not be purported to do so. You could just as easily cite A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade or Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by E. O. Wilson. The editors resisting removing biased language are ignoring the highly politicized nature of the topic and how that affects discourse. There is no need for a qualifying statement that only serves to push a particular viewpoint that is not empirical by any means. Let the concept stand on its own or show the competing perspectives. McGurkus (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]