Welcome to Wikipedia, WirmerFlagge! I am Martin Urbanec and I am the volunteer who received your account request. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WirmerFlagge! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to current discussion. And anyone who thinks that slavery in America was a good thing is a racist. Of course if they simply approve of the current type of slavery that is so common, they are just evil. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to determine that. It is not your job as an editor to moralize or characterize or adjudicate. And excuse me, but I will reply to posts that I think warrant a reply. Please refrain from harassing me further. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, I'm not harassing you, I'm suggesting that responding to such old posts is pointless as no one is likely to notice your reply. If you want to waste your time, sobeit. On the other hand, if you can moralize the way you are doing, why complain about me? So far as adjudicating, it's every editor's responsibility to determine, for instance, if something is reliably sourced. And at times it's my responsibility to adjudicate about about an editor's behavior, whether they are a sockpuppet, etc as I am an WP:Administrator with various extra roles. That's just a statement of fact by the way, don't read anything more into it please. You are new and clearly unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia work and we expect new editors to make mistakes. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi User:Doug Weller, okay fair enough - you are not harassing me. likewise, most of the subjects editors declare "racist" or "white supremacists" do not identify thusly. and frankly, aren't my actions more aligned with decreasing moralizing on wikipedia, whether the moralizing is done consciously or otherwise? the reason why i replied to a 12 year old discussion on the talk page is that genetic science has advanced considerably in the last decade and thereby these colonial age 'ethnologists' have been vindicated -- see the wikipedia entry on this very subject, the backflow of levantine genetics into north eastern and east africa. therefore, wouldn't it make sense to include a genetics section in the entry? all of these years later? and, wouldn't it be more generous -- and scholarly -- to view these thinkers in an historical context, as opposed to just calling everyone a racist? "racist" is a loaded term. it has lost all meaning in the last half decade other than as a pejorative, due to its overuse and it didn't have much meaning to begin with. not only was it an invented term, thought up by the soviets, but it does not account for the natural state of human beings for 99% of our evolutionary history, as isolated small sized groups who look similar and therefore view outsiders, even if they are just from over the next hill, as potential threats. there is a million years of bio- and psychological evolution to speak to this. and expecting that 19th century ethnographers, writing in the latter .05% of human history, to reevaluate their descriptions as potentially not PC is not only absurd, but down right stupid. so - can we ask wikipedia to reach a higher standard, even as it demands a higher standard from people who knew and understood much much less than we do? can we stop including our race obsession in everything, especially those that predate this obsession? thanks for keeping an eye on me. let's do better, together. wirmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your good faith. The bottom line about Wikipedia is that it's articles are meant to be based upon what reliable sources say about a subject. Now we may disagree about reliable sources, but that's a different subject and what is or is not reliable is decided by the community, and as we are a main stream encyclopedia, it's not surprising that we use mainstream sources.

Thus an article about Hamites might have a section on genetics if geneticists wrote about Hamites. If they don't, then we can't. See WP:NOR.

As for racism, it definitely was not invented by the Soviets - where did you get that idea? The French far right used it in the late 19th century, the first recorded use in English was in 1902.[1] And in any case I'd argue that the phenomena existed before the term. And that you don't have to know the term to dislike people who are different. But all that's by the by, we go by what the sources say. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller got it. i don't really want to drill down on the issue anymore. as i said previously, i'm not on some sort of crusade RE "racism." i just find it exhausting to find the accusation popping up in entries constantly. it's just so facile. and leaves no room for nuance. but, again, i don't want to spend anymore time on it -- not here, at least ;) and, i will admit there is a learning curve. like signing posts, for example. i want to do things right. and i appreciate your patience while i learn the ropes. see the following signature WirmerFlagge (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okay, User:Doug Weller i'm gonna drill down a bit more, but just for fun - here's an example of how complex these issues really are. the word 'barbarian' from the greek barbaros, wasn't used to put anyone down, necessarily, just to differentiate hellenic vs non hellenic. now, was the implication that the greeks were literate, philosophers, and rhetoricians, in addition to hoplite warriors, and the barbaroi were not? probably. but here's the irony - the word itself is not of greek origin. it might not even be indo-european. it is a complete loan word, that could be construed as a pejorative, perhaps, but it also became a female given name - barbara. so were the greeks bigots, calling everyone who wasn't greek a mean word that they borrowed from 'barbarians' and which ultimately became a beloved female given name? or is this impulse to assign a morality to the human impulse to differentiate and categorize just plain misguided? see where i'm going with this? WirmerFlagge (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WirmerFlagge! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tucker Carlson several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Tucker Carlson, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war.

Note: You cannot tone down language because you think "conspiracy theories" has no consensus definition. If reliable sources say it's a conspiracy theory or that Carlson "downplays" something, so do we.. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, may i ask if you sent the same message to the user who undid my edits? i did nothing controversial. i asked the user to approach me in talk after i was characterized as 'equivocating.' explain to me why i am engaging in unfreindly discussion, but they are not. WirmerFlagge (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh i see. you have an agenda. it is bad faith. you know it. i know it. and it is the reason that wikipedia will fail. sadly. that is on you and users of your ilk. truly sad. alright. please proceed. but let me ask you this, not that the academy has been ruined, what will tenure mean 50 years from now? not much. good luck. WirmerFlagge (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not send the same message as no other user made more than 1 revert and were adhering to NPOV. You are not being warned about any "unfriendly discussion". Just NPOV and the reverts. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I'll point you to WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. As explained on Talk:Tucker Carlson, your edits did not adhere to policy. That's it. No ulterior motive. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

right you stepped in to do the second revert for them. this is really bad. we are arguing over my attempt to introduce neutral language, based on what the citations ACTUALLY say. do you understand? this is not a discussion of my insertion of language calling Carlson an awesome guy that everyone loves. literally, good faith and uncontroversial adjustments to preserve some semblance of scholarship, no meaning was changed, no one's desired insertion was deleted, i preserved everything while managing to not sound like some shrill hater, but you cannot even refrain from quibbling and pulling rank over neutrality. the academy is dead, indeed. long live the academy. please proceed. WirmerFlagge (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was the 3rd reversion of your edits. I understand that Wikipedia policies take getting used to as most people are not used to writing for tertiary sources. There are quite a few essays on this, but the short version is that "neutral" does not mean showing both sides equally, using equivocating or hedging language, or avoiding or undoing media bias. It means summarizing what reliable sources (as a whole) say about a subject, even if those sources "take a side". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no. actually, my friend, i'm published - journals, compendiums, and encyclopedias. trust me, my scholarly and academic pedigree is solid, to say the least. as for the drivel about both sides. that's not what i did. see? you didn't even read what you undid. typical. this conversation is over. good luck. WirmerFlagge (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wirmer, we have a simple way to avoid edit warring, and it's called WP:BRD. Your BOLD edit was REVERTED (that means it was controversial and rejected by other editors. The next step is DISCUSSION. Instead of doing that, you tried to force your version twice after it was first reverted. That's two acts of edit warring. Now stick to discussion on the talk page and seek a consensus. A shortened and easier to understand version of BRD is found here: Wikipedia:Short BRD. No matter how right you may be, edit warring is never right or tolerated. Many a good editor has been blocked for edit warring, even when right. Keep in mind that BRD is not like WP:3RR, which has a 24-hr time factor. BRD can stretch out over many days, even weeks or months, as slow edit warring is also forbidden. This is when an editor refuses to accept the consensus, waits, and tries again to make their contested edit. Don't do that. Just discuss and accept the results. -- Valjean (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so first thing on your page is "Donald Trump is a Lunatic." Spare me the lectures, please. Did you also quote Wales' discussing the sickening bias and overt agenda of Wikipedia' de facto hierarchy? no. of course not. read the edits, before you lecture me. and in the meantime, psh ... you have no credibility, you wear your bias, proudly. and the sad thing is that i am merely trying to bring some credibility back to wikipedia. spare me. les mis´erables indeed. you don't even understand your own avatar. this is pathetic. buhbye. WirmerFlagge (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the personal attacks. Prove yourself better than that. The sole point of my comment was that you should not edit war, but you totally ignored that point. (BTW, it is Jimbo Wales who called Trump a lunatic, and that is a widely-held view.) -- Valjean (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 Wikipedia'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.

–dlthewave ☎ 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 Wikipedia'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.

–dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for disruptive editing, intentionally adding defamatory content, and inapprorpiate use of Wikipedia on the page Tucker Carlson, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."