User talk:Peregrine Fisher - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1004:b146:7c71:c16e:37fa:6c52:4acf (talk) at 20:15, 29 February 2020 (→Your reports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:15, 29 February 2020 by 2600:1004:b146:7c71:c16e:37fa:6c52:4acf (talk) (→Your reports)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Archives

DYK nomination of Home for Christmas (TV series)

Hello! Your submission of Home for Christmas (TV series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Achaea (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Game articles

I was thinking that working on some of those iconic game articles I mentioned previously may be a bit taunting, but if you are interested, there may be an easier way to get your feet wet – I just added several Origins Award-winning RPG adventure/sourcebook stubs under "Expand" on Template:RPGBox contents that could use some love. :) Check it out! I have been busy, those are just the tip of the iceberg. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a DnD wild hair is going to bite me soon. I'd like to write a notable article on "Red Dragon" or "Gold Dragon" or similar, if I could find the sources. Actually, what do you think are the most likely to be notable DnD monsters? I see demigorgan has already been merged. hmmm.

I wrote this for the hell of it Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#The_lunatics_are_running_the_asylum Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to remind myself. Demon type XVII, or whatever was a Balrog. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I started This and its talk page as a response to the slew of D&D AFDs we have been experiencing for the last few months. If you want to try resurrecting any of those, or any other redirected article, find your sources and let me know so I can restore it for you. You might be thinking of our good buddy Balor, who could use more sources before Sauron's evil eye turns his way? BOZ (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, re:Signpost

Hi P. Fisher, I saw your note on The Signpost talk page and would need to see a draft of the article before I could say anything about it as editor-in-chief. Could you send me a link? The subject, as I take it, is roughly "everything that's wrong with Misplaced Pages". We get quite a few of these articles proposed and I should say that most of them don't work out - the subject is just too big! I'd suggest focusing on one or two related problems. The basic rules for talk pages apply to a Signpost article, so no personal attacks or anything like that. Original research is definitely allowed. We also follow the principles of journalism, so if you don't think you couldn't publish the material as an op-ed in a respected local newspaper, you probably can't publish it in The Signpost. And unlike most of Misplaced Pages, to be published in The Signpost, our project rules say that the piece must be approved by the editor-in-chief. If you want to publish it on your own talk page, of course, you are free to.

So, it's a fairly serious task to get something like this published in The Signpost, but I'd love to see it. I'll be direct if I think it needs improvement or I just can't use it. Good luck!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I replied there. I'd like to read those articles about WP's problems that you didn't publish. Too bad. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Avi Yemini moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Avi Yemini, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If you copy stuff from another Misplaced Pages article, you must provide attribution; that's best done with a {{copied}} template on both the relevant talk-pages, but an edit summary is also sufficient (you can make a dummy edit to achieve that retroactively). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to say, thanks for your participation in the discussion at talk:race and intelligence, and I hope you'll stick around there. There is a need for more people who care about this article being edited in accordance with consensus and Misplaced Pages policy.

Also, I encourage you to read this discussion, which is about the changes that were originally made by Onetwothreeip and most recently restored by Volunteer Marek. Aside from my proposed change to the lead section, these changes are the article's largest current source of dispute.

These changes were first opposed by consensus on the article talk page, and when the justification for the changes was brought to the RS noticeboard, it was decisively opposed by consensus there as well. I would like some outside help or advice about this situation, in which the article is now being edited in a way that completely disregards the consensus that's been established on the article talk page and at at the noticeboard. You seem like an experienced editor, and this type of situation happens on the article somewhat often, so please mention it if you have any ideas about how it ought to be handled. 2600:1004:B16F:ED4F:AD6E:73F4:58C4:99 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 As I'm giving these alerts to others I felt I had to give one to you also. You might want to usu the new DSAWARE template, mine says {{Ds/aware|ap|e-e|gg|ab|blp|ip|a-i|cc|r-i}} Doug Weller talk 14:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Home for Christmas (TV series)

On 24 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Home for Christmas (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Home for Christmas, Netflix's first Norwegian TV show, was inspired by televised Nordic Christmas calendars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Home for Christmas (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Home for Christmas (TV series)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good work, man. :) BOZ (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Imp (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Imp (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your post on AE

Hi there, I am not sure if you are aware, but your post to the Arbitration Enforcement page is on the project talk page. Did you mean to open a new case on the project page? If so it is here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ but you may need to give a bit more detail as to what the issue is. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed this post, as it's not formatted correctly. If you'd like to make a request for enforcement, please use the template you can find at the top of the page, as AE is not a general discussion board. If you would like to open a more general discussion of the issue, somewhere such as the incident noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard would be an appropriate venue. If you are requesting some enforcement action, please feel free to repost as a correctly formatted request. Seraphimblade 01:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you please wait and see whether Volunteer Marek reverts against consensus again, before making a report about him? The article has just been locked in the stable version, so it's possible the situation is resolved now without having to file a report. 2600:1004:B11A:2404:D4DC:2D86:F016:1026 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You reading replies here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't normally, but after you made the post at AE that was removed, I decided to post in your user talk suggesting you wait before filing a report. And then I saw that someone else had already opened a discussion here, so I commented in this section instead of making a new section. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess you have your reasons for not creating an account. Anyways, I don't know the history of the article like you, but I don't think Volunteer Marik is really the problem (could be wrong). Seems like he did a little revert to test whether we really have consensus, and I'ts looking like maybe don't, if I'm the only one will to try and get the page to match the "consensus". I feel like you and a few others agree with me, but maybe not in a boots on the ground kind of way. And apparently opening an arbcom thing requires a bunch of work. I guess there's a template, and they probably want diffs and who know what else. I've been rejected twice so far. Maybe you could work on that if you don't want to edit the actual article? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the banner at the top of WP:AE, only registered users can make reports there. I have a pretty good idea of how it's done, though, because I helped another user make a report against Grayfell last year. If things get to a point where a report is necessary, I can tell you what I know about how to do it.

I haven't been directly editing the race and intelligence article because for a long time, it was set so that only registered users can edit it. However, the article had a few edits yesterday from an IP user, so maybe that setting has changed recently. If others keep editing the article in a way that contradicts the outcome of the talk page discussions, I guess I can assist in dealing with that, but I still have a pretty strong aversion to that approach. When people edit the article in a way that disregards consensus on the talk page, there must be a better way to deal with it than by edit warring. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion about this sequence of edits: Do you think this constitutes canvassing? It doesn't seem like it could be appropriate to post the same thing in six different places. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's canvassing to a certain degree, but I don't think it's that bad. Talking about the 8 to 4/5 split, if someone went and notified just the 8, or just the 4/5, that would be bad canvassing. He may actually draw in editors who agree with the 8!

To put it bluntly, we probably need some edit warring to take to AE. Say I'm reverted by person A on Monday, and person B on Tuesday. "Hey arbcom, everyone is reverting me!" Arbcom will say "maybe your the problem and you shouldn't make edits that get reverted". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking of possibly starting a talk page discussion asking whether other editors would support changing "blacks" to "black people", and "whites" to "white people". I've just looked at several sources taking both perspectives on this article's topic, and the words "blacks" and "whites" definitely are the most common terminology. But I also think this particular change matters less than the mass removal of sources, and we haven't yet had an in-depth discussion about which terms should be used. Before I start this discussion, there's one dilemma I need to ask you about.

Broadly speaking, the editors who prefer Onetwothreeip's version of the article are in the minority, but they're clearly the more active and determined group. I also think we already know that those editors support the change in terms. But in order for the proposal to truly achieve consensus, it also must have some support from the larger, but less active group of editors who supported restoring the stable version. Do you think for the purpose of this particular discussion, about whether some of the editors who supported restoring the stable version would nonetheless support the change in terms, it would be acceptable to ping just those 8 editors? Or would that still be inappropriate canvassing? 2600:1004:B11C:60B2:1C45:645C:CFE0:F8BA (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't do any selective pinging, especially as an IP. People would look askance.

Also, that's basically saying "fine, we'll let the 4 win, then see if they will discuss things reasonably". They wont. If we can get the consensus version in place for a while, then the 4 will want to discuss everything. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus

Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

It would be helpful if you didn't copy/paste your entire post into the edit summary – it takes up a bunch of screen space unnecessarily. Just a few words that sumarize what you did is helpful, per WP:ES. Thanks. —— 19:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

POV forks

You mentioned that being a POV fork is not a valid reason for deletion. I wanted to make sure you're aware of our WP:POVFORK guideline which states that it is an unacceptable type of content fork. We can certainly discuss whether or not Race and intelligence counts as a POV fork, but your assertion that this is not a valid deletion rationale runs counter to our guidelines and is unlikely to sway the outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll answer there. I could be in the wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BE

The editor making that comment is, per WP:QUACK, the same IP and location as an IP-hopper at Human genetic clustering, Racialism, etc. It's the same editor as 142.116.165.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is blocked, and this charming page history including overtly offensive and threatening comments. Per comments on my talk page from Doug Weller, this IP range includes enough positive contributions that it's likely shared by multiple users, and blocking it should be a last resort. I reverted this per Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Evasion and enforcement, the comments may or may not be superficially appropriate, but this editors behavior is inappropriately disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and I'll leave it alone. Thank you for your service.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a 'BE'. I read stuff on here from my phone, and sometimes edit when bored. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I first tried editing on this platform a few days ago. This same person above said the same thing then. As I understand it now, by 'BE', I am thought to be an editor evading an account suspension, or something along those lines. I would appear to be involved in similar social media circles, maybe on youtube or twitter, and also from Ontario, Quebec or New York based on IP, but I am not that user. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct about what people think of you. If that isn't you then you should create an account. You may be innocent, but so many people use non logged in accounts for mischief that people will look askance at you. If you create an account and keep your nose clean, you'll have the power to say what you want just like the rest of us. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I normally just use this website to read up on football (soccer) articles, but I could end up creating an account. I felt like chiming in with my two cents on some issues of casual interest. Thanks. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It seemed like you knew what's going on with the science, so you should join us. My prediction for what's going to happen is the article will not be deleted. Then we're going to have a conversation (fight) about which certain things should be censored and removed from the article. (I am anti censorship myself) Should be interesting! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a fight and anyone who views it as such should not be editing in that area. Additionally, the views espoused by 2605 and similar IPs do not suggest familiarity with current scientific consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem with suggesting he get an account is that this will just create another sock. Sprayitchio has had many. See here. . Cheers. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem for you is that I am not any of the users on that list there. And I'd presume, based on your behaviour, you have no evidence either proving that the users on that list are the same people or are associated. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

You used the edit summary "revert, please seek consensus for major changes" at Race and intelligence. Since this article is not under a special "consensus required" restriction, editors are free to make edits, even major ones, without first seeking consensus. If you object to the substance of the changes, I would be happy to discuss on the talk page, but please do not revert simply because someone did not seek consensus before making a change. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

They were bold, I reverted, now we discuss. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC

You've given no valid reason for the reversion and your discussion amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 00:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been following. 123IP made a bunch of changes a while back. We had a discussion. There was a consensus that the changes were not good. We got rid of those changes. People are putting similar changes back in against conensus. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You're again attempting to make special rules. "don't delete huge chuncks (sic) without discussion" is not based on policy; editors are allowed to make bold edits without prior discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

dlthewave, Peregrine Fisher should have given a better rationale to revert you. I have provided it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. WP:BRD Totally normal. You keep being bold, I keep reverting, the discussion says you have not improved the article. Here's the abnormal part. You wait a few days. You do it again. I do it again. The discussion goes the same way again. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What "discussion" are you referring to? The only previous comment on the topic, "you know why", was not a discussion. Please engage the topic at hand instead of citing some nonexistent prior discussion or consensus which, even if it it existed, would still be up for debate. If you can point me to where this section has been discussed before, though, I will gladly take that into consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 05:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For a sec there I thought you might have come along after all the discussion and I was going to feel stupid. But, no, you were there. There's discussions in archive 99, 100, and the talk current page. I imagine you don't think any of that was a consensus, but I'm pretty sure you know which sections I consider to be consensus. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you point me to the section where Global variation of IQ scores was discussed? I'm not seeing it on the current talk page (aside from the current discussion which I've opened), nor does it appear in archive 99 or 100 unless I've overlooked something. There were several discussions where editors objected to content removal and expressed a desire to discuss it in smaller chunks; what I did here was remove a specific section that was based entirely on primary sources and open a talk page discussion as requested. What exactly is the objection to that? –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just talking about the consensuses about not gutting the article in general. The only one about that section is the that started yesterday. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I had recently been thinking about trying to take Abraham Lincoln to FA (as well as the American Civil War), but realized that a group of folks would probably be needed considering the sheer scope. I was planning to reach out to you and see if you were interested in trying to take this to FA, seeing as you shepherded it to GA, but you've gotten involved again and seem to have answered my question. Are you looking to take Lincoln to FA? If so, I would be glad to help. I suspect a few other folks could easily be rounded up to create a FA team.

Clearly much work needs to be done, but gotta start somewhere. I note that since you took it to GA, the article has more than doubled in size, from 73kb prose to 148kb, well over the 100kb preferred limit. Some sub-articles may need to be spun out. A peer review might be a good place to start, try to get some outside eyes on it. Lemme know what ya think! Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ⚓ 05:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm kinda interested in working on it. I can not spear head another Honest Abe FA. It's too much work. I'd talk about it though. The first thing that comes to my mind is I had it damn close to FA back in the day. Like if you reverted to that version and then made all the fixes that a reviewer wanted, it could be done by a few editors each putting in 10-20 hours of work. That 73 to 148kb is scary. It's probably a bunch of stuff that didn't improve the article. What am I saying? I'd be interested in a somewhat ruthless run at making it an FA. But I wouldn't want to pussyfoot around, and I don't want to do the heavy lifting. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your reports

This pattern of making one report at AN or ANI after another doesn't seem to be helping anything. If Onetwothreeip continues edit warring against consensus, what you should do is gather the diffs of him doing that over the past two months, and then make a properly-formatted report about it at WP:AE. As I said earlier, I helped one other editor make an AE report last year, so I can I can give you some help with how to do that if you need it. 2600:1004:B15D:697F:F1AB:F59B:5A3B:897D (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that one blew up in my face! I think I'm acting a bit of a dick lately, so I'm going to chill out for a little bit. AE sounds like the likely next place. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Because of how my IP address periodically changes, if you post in my user talk it's hard to know whether I'll see it, but if you need advice about how to prepare a report for AE, you can ask me in this thread and I'll probably notice it. 2600:1004:B15D:697F:F1AB:F59B:5A3B:897D (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You still watching this? Nice work on checking what is RS without bringing in me and other involved people! I probably wouldn't have helped. That one uninvolved guy really knew his shit! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still watching. I had hoped resolving the reliability question could put a stop to the huge undiscussed removals of content, because the main reason previously given for removing it was that its sources allegedly were unreliable. But now the removals are continuing with a different set of justifications. I wonder whether the RSN discussion made any positive difference in the long term? 2600:1004:B12B:F7D4:BDAC:8AA7:CEBB:1BFF (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(redent) That was genius. If the article doesn't get deleted at DRV, and I don't get shitcanned at AE, it's going to be critical. What we need are impartial looks at the article and it's RSs. That's the next thing people will be disagreeing about. But we'll be able to fast forward a bit and actually get to the content. You never know though. That admin who said "Delete! and I'm taking a vacation starting now!" shows you that people get excited about this. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Spartaz's close was the most epic "I'm getting the fuck out of Dodge" I've even seen on Misplaced Pages. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Major LOL! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: are you following what's happening in the AE report? My reading of the discussion there is that admins are close to agreeing that Peregrine Fisher should be topic banned, even though six of the eight other editors commenting there (yourself, me, Pudeo, Ferahgo the Assassin, rnddude, and SMcCandlish) all feel that a topic ban for him is not appropriate.

As per Dlthewave's statement here, the outcome of this report may depend on whether the huge undiscussed removals are an improvement or not, which in turn depends on whether the material being removed is "fringe". Over the past month I've been looking in the article's talk page archives for issues that have been resolved in the past, and I recently found a discussion there that directly addresses this question. Unfortunately it's from ten years ago, so I don't know whether it would be useful to mention in the present situation, but I wanted you and Peregrine Fisher to be aware of it. 2600:1004:B146:7C71:C16E:37FA:6C52:4ACF (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

I've previously warned you about reverting without providing a valid reason. Your recent edit at Race and intelligence, with the edit summary "I think this should be included. Let's talk about it." implied that you would explain yourself on the talk page, but your talk page comment consisted of "What are the policy and guideline reasons this should be removed?" In the future, do not revert unless you can provide a valid policy-based reason to do so; otherwise your edits are not likely to stand. Please remember that you're editing in an area that is under Discretionary Sanctions and this type of behavior may be seen as disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the editor

Several of your recent comments at Race and intelligence focus on editor behavior, not content, and accuse others of POV pushing:

"... you have a POV to push when you say "inflammatory political opinions"
"... it's all IAR which seems to be the main policy guiding this article"
"you don't like the authors"
"I'm seeing people calling secondary sources primary sources. And I'm seeing people saying primary sources need to be removed, which is also not true. If you think I should feel chagrined, I don't.

If you feel that there is POV pushing, bias, misrepresentation of sources, etc. taking place, the correct place to raise your concerns would be either a user talk page or a noticeboard such as ANI. I realize that your recent ANI posts have not been well received; you may have more success if your clearly communicate the specific concerns and issues that you're seeing. In any case please keep your talk page comments focused on content and do not use that space to discuss editor behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Whole thing may be deleted at AfD,DrV, DrV2. Should be interesting. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

AE notice

I've opened an Arbitration Enforcement request regarding your conduct in the Race and Intelligence topic area. The discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Peregrine_Fisher. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)