Hi @Tdkelley1, you've collapsed/hatted everything below this post - it's still there & you just need to click to expand it. Is that what you meant to do, or were you trying to delete it?
THanks for your helpful reply. I am new to wikipedia, as in new to the current way of doing things, not new to wikipedia in general. Specifically, I think there have been threads that have been "archived"? Is that correct? Troy Kelley Tdkelley112:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have saved some of the interactions that were archived, but I don't want to repost that here, for fear of further retribution. I can send them to you directly, or provide you with a link so you can review the interaction. Troy Kelley Tdkelley112:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) @Tdkelley1 Hi & thanks for your reply. Help:Archiving a talk page will help explain how that works, or you can just go into your Talk page through "edit full page" and manually delete the parts you want to remove.
I've tried to remove the "hatting" but I'm stuck on mobile and my phone isn't having any of it right now... The contents are still there, just minimised. You can go in and delete everything manually except declined unblock requests - they will stay in the Talk page history. Or follow the instructions in my link and try to archive stuff manually, if you prefer. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it. The block is just going to stay in place. Well, nice working with you Wikipedia. This was a completely frustrating experience. Troy Kelley Tdkelley113:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello,
I was reading this part of the article.
"The AAH is considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community" but the references given do not support the claim.
THe first reference (32) is a book on human evolution but not about pseudoscience or AAH relation to pseudoscience. The third reference (35) is not about pseudoscience at all or even about AAH specifically, instead it is an article about the lakes in africa around the time of human evolution and seems to suppoart the AAH theory. Irrespective of what the article is about, it is not related to pseudoscience in the least. Tdkelley1 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you do not appear to have read these citations and your assumptions about another ref below were incorrect, I checked one and it did support the content in question. These references should not be removed. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? How do you know I didn't read the references? What is incorrect about my assumption of the other ref?. Which ref? There are three. Troy Kelley Tdkelley114:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I checked the references and they do in fact support the claims they are attached to. Since there was a similar issue discussed below where you subsequently admitted you could not read a paywalled reference you had critiqued, I assumed the same here. The other option is that you did read the reference but inaccurately summarized its content - either way, the article should not be changed on that basis. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ref 35 is about lakes in Africa, thus supporting the AAT, not disproving it. Did you read that article? If so, please tell me in detail how it supports the savanna theory? Additionally, how do you know I did not pay for the article or get it another way - yes I was complaining it was behind a paywall, but couldnt that motivate me to buy it? I would also be interested in hearing your summarization of the content in the article, because you apparently think that I inaccurately summarized it. Troy Kelley Tdkelley114:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 35 expressly explains what it supports in its closing paragraph, and it is not the AAH. You stated below that you could not access it. Were you being dishonest when you said so? MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may have had my reference number incorrect. I was unable to reference article 3.
This is the last paragraph of reference 35. I do not see the word aquatic ape anywhere in this paragraph. Do you? The varaiblilty hyopothesis supports aquatic ape. Do you understand what this theory is about?
The periods of deep lakes correlate withimportant global climatic changes. The periodbetween 2.7 and 2.5 Ma corresponds to in-tensification of the Northern Hemisphere Glaci-ation (29), 1.9 to 1.7 Ma to an importantintensification and shift in the east-west zonalatmospheric circulation referred to as theWalker circulation (30), and the interval from1.1 to 0.9 Ma to the initiation of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution: the shift from glacial/interglacial cycles every 41,000 years to everyÈ100,000 years (31). If these lakes areephermal features of the landscape forced byprecession, that strongly supports the Variabil-ity Hypothesis of human evolution (16), be-cause the environment inside the East AfricanRift Valley would have varied rapidly betweensustained humid and arid periods, providing thestress required to initiate speciation.
Temporary lakes would be incompatible with the AAH. And they explicitly state their results support the Variability Hypothesis of human evolution, which is again not the AAH. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Do you even understand what AAH is about? It states that humans would need lakes, rivers, shorelines, to evolve things like the diving reflex, the hooded nose and streamlined body hair. Temporary lakes and the uncertainty of the changing environment would increase speciation which is what AAH would predict! Are you an anthropologist? You don't seem to understand the theory. Troy Kelley Tdkelley115:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and answer your questions, even with your lack of specificity.
The source is a paper about the variability hypothesis and the author uses as evidence the topology of Africa including lakes and shorelines, to support the variablity hypo. Variablity hypo also supports AAT.
Can you be more specific? I have been as specific as I care to be in my comments thus far. I will try and answer your questions I have no questions for you. I understand your argument, I just disagree. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had extensive discussions with the editors. I believe I provided a creditable case for my edits. One edit I proposed was because the reference was simply incorrect. An incorrect reference needs to be changed, correct? I would be happy to discuss this with you further.
I would be interested in your opinion of those interactions on the talk page. My interactions with the editors are at the bottom of the talk page, I believe I defended editing the page quite well, because it was simply, incorrect. I am really surprised that this is even a discussion. Troy Kelley Tdkelley120:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
=== Another poor reference ===
I was reading this part of the article.
"The AAH is considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community" but the references given do not support the claim.
ONe Reference 33, is from a 1998 book, that mentions AAH on a few pages. It does not say the theory is pseudoscience, instead it says, "The aquatic-ape theory has surface appeal yet so far scientists have ignored it. It is hard to see how some human features, like babies' ability to survive for an hour underwater could have arisen without a watery environment. Yet, until this theory survives and enfilade of scientific criticism its merit will remain unclear." This is certainly no mention of pseudoscience, instead a statement that the theory needs more evidence. Tdkelley1 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
=== The pseudoscience label in the first paragraph is not justified by the references ===
While the hypothesis has some popularity with the lay public, it is generally ignored or classified as pseudoscience by anthropologists.(2,3,4)
Reference number 2 is a critique of the AAH but it does not use the word pseudoscience in the title of the article. Additionally, the article is behind a paywall and not available for examination by the public.
Reference number 3 is a book about pseudoscience in general, but not AAH specifically, instead just a general review of what pseudoscience is as a whole, but not specifically AAH.
Additionally, reference 4 is another general reference about pseudoscience in general, but does not support the assertion that AAH "is generally ignored or classified as pseudoscience by anthropologists". because the book is not specifically even about the topic that is being referenced. Tdkelley1 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of problems with this paragraph.
Anthropologists do not take the hypothesis seriously: John Langdon characterized it as an umbrella hypothesis (a hypothesis that tries to explain many separate traits of humans as a result of a single adaptive pressure)
In this cause an "umbrella hypothesis" is also called Occam's Razor where one uses the most simple explanation to describe many different pieces of evidence. I am not sure an "umbrella hypothesis", in the sense of Occam's Razor, can be considered a critique of the theory.
...that was not consistent with the fossil record, and said that its claim that it was simpler and therefore more likely to be true than traditional explanations of human evolution was not true. According to anthropologist John Hawkes, the AAH is not consistent with the fossil record.
There are no references to support this assertion. This reference to John Hawkes is from a blog post, not a peer reviewed article with references to support assertions. Additionally, the assertion of the blog post that the AAH "is not consistent with the fossil record" is simply false. And if it is not false, the assertion needs references to support the claim. Additionally, too much weight is being given to this blog post and the pronouncements made in the blog post, when the blog post did not undergo rigorous scientific review.Tdkelley1 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick point on ref 3 (Rafferty): the publisher's website, not behind a paywall, includes an abstract of the chapter: This chapter presents a famous example of pseudoscience in physical anthropology. The hypothesis that human evolution involved an aquatic stage is a long-standing belief despite it having been thoroughly debunked. I think that is ample justification for describing it as "pseudoscience". PamD14:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If only a part of the paper is available, like the abstract, that is generally considered behind a paywall amongst my colleagues. The public should be able to access any reference, including the entire paper, not just the abstract. The the referenced paper needs to be reviewed and paper references checked, that cannot be done with just the abstract. 2601:140:4100:6900:78BF:B218:14EE:9588 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for the note to the rules. I think wikipedia has a way to get articles from behind paywalls?? I will try that. Troy Kelley Tdkelley117:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood that is the rule. Thanks. Seems strange though. It would encourage other people to post un-accessable articles as reference to the counter viewpoint. Just suggesting a different reference be used instead.
Also the changes I made to this article to reflect the rules - that a neutral point of view be used for the article - have not been implemented yet. I changed the first paragraph to be more neutral. Troy Kelley Tdkelley114:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were reverted. Neutral POV explictly does not mean false balance (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). In cases such as this one where the reliable sources call something 'pseudoscience' the Wikipedia article will as well. Accurately reflecting the sources and the mainstream view is not any kind of neutrality problem. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be neutral, just the facts are necessary. The intro paragraph should begin with the explaining the theory, with references to the first author, and developer of the theory. That is a neutral argument. Then both counter arguments are presented in the second paragraph.
Additionally, there are other posts here as the the label of "pseudoscience" being completely unjust. Those additional facts were not included in the main page. And those references should be included.
Additionally, the poor references given in the first paragraph make the page inaccurate. For example, the first references to human evolution in general is not specific enough. IT is like saying the Honda Accord is a bad car, and giving a reference to all cars in general. The reference is not specific enough. Troy Kelley Tdkelley115:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to believe the word is "unjust", but on Wikipedia we follow the independent sources and accurately summarize the main stream view, which is clear: the AAH is pseudoscience. Your comments on citations have been repeatedly inaccurate and have in no way established that the sourcing is "poor". MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference the specifics about what I have previously stated? - one part of the argument - which is currently pseudo science You really are just moving the goal post for me, which is not a valid in debates.
Do you know what year AAH was declared pseudoscience? Do you understand what has happened recently in the science, especially all the discoveries in anthropology since 2005? Science moves forward. There is a lot of new science.
New and additional information always refutes or confirms a theory. The NEW evidence only supports the theory. I would like to be allowed to add support to the theory, and to the objections which were raised more than 20 years ago. Troy Kelley Tdkelley115:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. so false balance applies to pseudo science? OK, but you have a flat earth page? So why not a aquatic ape page? Additionally, a "pseudo science" is a theory without any scientific evidence at all, which does not apply to the aquatic ape theory. I would be glad to expand this detail with scientific papers. The fact that is is clasified as a pseudo science is incorrect and was done more than 20 years ago by one author and one blog post. Since it has been on the internet so long, it has become "main stream" even though it was one blog post by one author, it was not a peer reviewed article. Troy Kelley Tdkelley115:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that is is clasified as a pseudo science is incorrect and was done more than 20 years ago by one author and one blog post. This is clearly false, given all the citations we've been discussing. MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have not addressed my previous comments, but I will bite.
Every sourcing claim of yours that I have checked (and discussed above) has been factually incorrect. In at least one case (that you have admitted to so far) you had not read the source you were claiming was invalid. "Clearly false" is a good summary of your contributions to this talk page thus far. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had an incorrect reference number that I already apologized for.
The source that I was claiming was invalid, you dont know if I read that or not.
you dont know if I read that or not. I know that you didn't read it because you said you didn't have access to it. On other pages on Wikipedia you asked someone to send it to you - after you had already claimed it wasn't valid here. I suppose the other option is that you were being dishonest about that for some reason. Can we stay on topic and discuss changes to this page? I disagree that it is off topic to note that all of your claims thus far have been factually wrong. But given that, and your repeated attempts to cover the same ground (reminiscent of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) I think I'll take a break from this talk page for a while to see if anyone else has something to say. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> I know that you didn't read it because you said you didn't have access to it.
But that was a week or so ago. How do you "know" i didnt get access after that. And more to the point, the article is about pseudo science in general, it is not specific enough.
>I disagree that it is off topic to note that all of your claims thus far have been factually wrong
I would like to discuss this in more detail, can you give me specifics?. I have dyslexia so I sometimes make mistakes with numbers and I apologised for that already. I apologised for the one mistake. In essence, this is just a distraction from the main argument of whether the article has any merit or not. Troy Kelley Tdkelley120:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
additionally what you are calling my mistake, when I know the actual facts about when this theory was developed, are incorrect. Your reference 2009 reference is from an UPDATED article, not the original. Irrespective of those facts, again, this is just distraction from the main point of the discussion, which is the relevance of the article in the first place. 2009 is 15 years ago. More research has been done. Troy Kelley Tdkelley120:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference itself says it was a blog post! Reference 5 - Hawks, JD (August 2009). Why Anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory" (Blog post).
Oh. I see what you are saying. the blog post was updated to 4 August 2009. The original blog post is from 1999, and believe me I know, because I was discussing these ideas with the author at the time, but the blog has been updated. Irrespective of the exact time, it is almost 20 years old and it is NOT a peer reviewed journal article. Troy Kelley Tdkelley116:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, finally had a chance to see the reference. It is from one book chapter of a single book. Book chapters are not peer reviewed scientific articles. Book chapters are put together at the request of the author by similar minded authors. They are not peer reviewed.
Request that the main page for aquatic ape hypothesis list significant recent references from high impact journals and not book chapters, to support counter arguments. Book chapters, in general, are not valid as credible scientific sources. Troy Kelley Tdkelley121:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are cherry picking. The rules also say "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." This is not the case with the book chapter in question.
Additionally, a book chapter in question is not a peer reviewed journal article and should not be used as the primary source to refute an argument in a scientific setting. This is not how it is done in academic settings. I respectfully understand this is a wikipedia rule, but this rule does not follow typical academic standards. Troy Kelley Tdkelley122:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books from major publishers like Routledge have a strong Wikipedia-wide consensus to be reliable sources. You can try to raise this at WP:RSN, but the chances that you will be able to convince anyone that this book does not meet WP:RS are near zero. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not see the additional rules pertaining to my comment. I will read up on those additional rules you sited for me.
As context, I have been a scientific reviewer for literally 100s of scientific articles as a government scientist, both as a publisher and an author. It has been my job to review research papers from academic institutions, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, that a book chapter is not a scientifically peer reviewed journal article, and would never be used to refute a another theory in an article. This is not just my POV, is also widely accepted in academic circles. Troy Kelley Tdkelley123:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. In my personal experience with editing scientific articles, is that a book chapter is not a suitable reference to refute a theory. This is not an accepted practice. This is why I wanted to, and have been attempting to, edit the aquatic ape hypothesis main page. Troy Kelley Tdkelley123:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books about pseudoscience (which is commonly ignored by mainstream scientists) are as good a source as it gets for classifying something as pseudoscience. You can talk about personal experience all you like, but on Wikipedia we're going to follow Wikipedia's policies, which are what they are for good reason. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed, the label of pseudoscience is inaccurate, and has been recanted by the original author (that is discussed in the talk section).
The original accusation of pseudoscience was made about 20 years ago, in a single blog post, by a single author, and did not represent a consensus viewpoint at the time.
More to the point, determining a good reference is easy if you look at the number of citations of the book chapter or article. The book chapter in question has 5!
Yes, I am actively supporting a petition to make more distinctions and specifications about what articles should be considered reputable and what articles should not be considered reputable. The process is very simple really, the number of citations is a very good objective measure. I hope that wikipedia will change its rules and follow mainstream academic policy which would allow for more public trust in wikipedia. Troy Kelley Tdkelley123:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, notice the high number of citations are to a RETRACTED article, which is clearly labeled as RETRACTED. I am guessing it has a high citation rate because it was INCORRECT.
But you are correct, this can also lead to a high citation rate, but only if one doesn't read the article in question. One only has to read this article to understand where the high citation rate came from. This would be done in a peer reviewed setting.
I understand wikipedia has been around awhile. I have made numerous edits to pages over my many years. Today I am surprised by the pushback to making any edits to the main page of an article. If others have presented this same idea or conundrum as I am presenting, as you say. I can only conclusion I can make is that the idea and definition of article reputation and scientific merit needs to be taken more seriously. Troy Kelley Tdkelley100:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of determining if an article has a high impact is to look at the number of citations an article has received by other peers. The article, or book chapter in question, has received 5 citations! A high impact article will have hundreds or thousands of citations. This book chapter would not be considered a high impact article. You can review this information here.
Thanks for the reference! I did not realize there was such a thing as an "edit war". I am not versed in this type of warfare. Troy Kelley Tdkelley121:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just read this, the first sentence was this - An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. - this is what is happening now, in some respects. I have made reasonable edits and they are just rejected out-of-hand.
In order to keep this from happening, might I suggest two sections? ONe section supporting the theory, the other section not supporting the theory? This can be done with the MOST RECENT research in each section. If someone wants to edit the page, the editors should make them address the most current research in either the pro or against section. This keeps the editors from having to make endless decisions about edits, and keeps the arguments current. The arguments in this specific case, are not current, and they would not pass muster in an academic community. Troy Kelley Tdkelley121:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe my editing was disruptive, because any edits I made, vanished almost instantly! How could this be disruptive if the edits were only available for a few seconds?
I would like a 3rd party to review my interactions with a particular editor. I do not believe the comments from this editor were made in good faith. I am very disappointed in my interactions today with this certain wikipedia editor and would like the ban lifted.
As context, I have reviewed and edited scientific papers professionally for over 30 years. I know when I am being "snowed" with snarky responses. The interactions I have had here today are completely unprofessional and not appropriate for a site that supports intellectual discussion and debate. Troy Kelley Tdkelley103:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about your unverifiable claim that I have reviewed and edited scientific papers professionally for over 30 years. Do you think that anonymous people on the internet will get better treatment here on Wikipedia, the #7 website in the world, by making such statements? The only thing that gives a new editor credibility here is their ability to comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. As for your claim that Wikipedia is a site that supports intellectual discussion and debate, you are wrong there as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a debating society and it is also not a forum for discusssion . Our only role is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say about millions of topics. As for getting your pageblocks (not bans) lifted, I am not going to do that. I already linked above to the Guide to appealing blocks. Read it carefully and file a formal unblock request. Another administrator will evaluate whether or not your disruptive editing has come to an end, and make their decision accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"nobody cares about your unverifiable claim" - this is completely unprofessional and accusatory. I listed in my comments ways to verify the claim. My claim was in reference to what is done in the academic community. If your role is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, then you are not doing a good job.
Hello, Tdkelley1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tarlby(t) (c)02:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]
I would like to chronicle some of the inappropriate comments I have received from editors
from editor - Given that you do not appear to have read these citations and your assumptions about another ref below were incorrect, I checked one and it did support the content in question. These references should not be removed.
Completely unprofessional. How does an editor know what I have read and what I have not read? Why is he accusing me of not reading something? I did request the article from wikipedia, but got the article on my own. The editor assumes that if I requested the article I did not read it. Completely unhelpful and unprofessional. Also, the point I was making was ignored.
Ref 35 expressly explains what it supports in its closing paragraph, and it is not the AAH. You stated below that you could not access it. Were you being dishonest when you said so?
I am accused of being dishonest by the editor.
Temporary lakes would be incompatible with the AAH. And they explicitly state their results support the Variability Hypothesis of human evolution, which is again not the AAH.
Now I am arguing about a theory that the editor does not understand. Why should I argue the merits of a theory with an editor that does not understand the material? His comments here are completely incorrect.
I understand that the source is not saying what you claimed it says above - in fact it supports the opposite.
The source was saying what I claimed, and this was pointed out later in the thread. This is completely unwarranted. The source does not say the opposite. The editor is commenting on science that the editor knows nothing about.
I have been as specific as I care to be in my comments thus far. I will try and I have no questions for you. I understand your argument, I just disagree.
My questions to be more specific were essentially ignored. As if I was bothering the editor by asking for specifics. Why are not specifics addressed by the editor?
See above and below. And kindly don't open multiple talk sections about the same issue again in the future
Instead of addressing my comments, I am told to not open multiple threads. This is not a productive and helpful comment as it does not address my comments, and I did not realize I was opening multiple threads.
I once again decline to repeat myself, feel free to read the above discussion again. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
If I am asking for specifics, then I did not understand the original post. Telling me to re-read it is not an editor that is acting in good faith.
I would welcome a third party look at my interactions with this editor. These comments are really just the start of a series of comments that are not in good faith, not productive or helpful, and contrary to good academic practices.
I could really go on and on here, but I just wanted to document my interactions with one editor that I do not believe was helpful, professional, or acting in good faith to make the article in question as accurate as it could be. Troy Kelley Tdkelley112:32, 18 February 2025 (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).
I believe this block was a mistake because I was making constructive thoughtful edits, and I would like to continue contributing positively. I will follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Troy Kelley Tdkelley100:04, 20 February 2025 (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.
(Non-administrator comment) A lot of the comments you have preserved don't look like they violate policies and look more like people disagreeing with you or offering advice. In any case, maintaining a wall of shame does not indicate someone who wishes to work with others. I suggest removing it. QwertyForest (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'd also suggest reading WP: Guide to appealing blocks and WP:NOTTHEM before taking another shot at this, I'm pretty sure that your current single-paragraph appeal is unlikely to be accepted.
Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, so if you don't show any understanding of why you were blocked and how to avoid future disruption, admins will see no reason to unblock you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
February 2025
Since your disruption and personal attacks against other editors have continued since I pageblocked you from two pages, I have extended the block to sitewide. The only page you can edit is this, your user talk page. The only subject to discuss here is the process of getting unblocked. If you engage in any further disruptive behavior, your talk page access will be revoked. Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you read through my interactions with editors, I have attempted to be most kind and patient as I could be. You will see that I repeatedly said I was sorry during my interactions, especially when I accidently broke any rules. I attempted to stick strictly to the topic at hand, and try to answer all reasonable questions. I think if you review my posts, just look right above on this page.
However, I found a MrOllie to be particularly disagreeable editor. I have pointed this out to other people. My interactions with him/her are posted above and were quite unpleasant. Frankly several people here were very rude to me. Just look at my recent posts where i asked an editor to clarify themselves and he did not answer me. Again, this is unacceptable for an editorial site where people come first to find answers about all sorts of different subjects. I am just sorry I wasted so much time on this site. I think I have made myself clear. Troy Kelley Tdkelley122:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be unblocked, then you must make a formal unblock request following the specific directions that I have pointed out to you twice now. Engaging in personal attacks against MrOllie is a poor tactic. That editor, after all, has has been editing for about 17 years, has made roughly 200 times more edits than you, and clearly understands Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms vastly better than you do. If you instead just want to go away, then just go away. Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after my interactions here, I have little faith that any, "formal unblock request" would be a good use of my time. As for Mr. Ollie, I have no idea how long he has worked here, but you only have to look above, on this page, for his interactions, with me. He incorrectly called me dishonest (see above) after a few interactions, which is a personal attack, of an editor, towards me. After that I continued to be polite, as you can see in my discussions, some of which have been removed, but the interactions got only worse. And to be frank, he was not the only editor. I am very disappointed that my most recent interaction with an editor resulted in a completely unilateral decision. The editor accused me of misunderstanding a paper, and yet offered no support for that claim, and when I asked for support, he/she did not offer any. If I misunderstand a paper, am more than happy to discuss. My request for a discussion was met with silence. This not how an editorial process should proceed. Finally, it seems like you just want me to go away, which is also not a good indication of any sort of useful interaction between the two of us. Respectfully, I would like to apologize for any statements I might have made which might be construed as a personal attack. If you think a formal request would be productive, I will submit a formal request. However, to move forward the faster, I would like a 3rd party review of the paper I previously discussed. I welcome thoughtful comments on any research, and if I am misunderstanding a paper, I would like to learn something new. Troy Kelley Tdkelley112:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it would be helpful if I was allowed to respond to other editors who are currently interacting with me. There was a very thoughtful piece of advice given to me today, my anthor editor, but I have no way of thanking him/her because I have been banned. Troy Kelley Tdkelley113:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your only avenue to continue interacting with others is to file an unblock request, as Cullen outlined. There is not going to be any "3rd party review" until you do so and, in my opinion, any such review is not likely to end in your favor. I'd follow first law of holes on this subject.
You are on the very brink of having your talk page access revoked. If you want to keep editing Wikipedia, then file a formal unblock request for review by an uninvolved administrator If you attack MrOllie or anyone else again, or complain any more about the editorial processes of the #7 website in the world, then your talk page access will be revoked. The only thing you are permitted to do at this point is to formally ask to be unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2025 (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).
I believe this block was a mistake because I was making constructive edits, and I would like to continue contributing positively. I will follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Troy Kelley Tdkelley100:06, 20 February 2025 (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.
Hello Tdkelley1! The thread you created at the Teahouse, I am not sure what bludgeoning is?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello Tdkelley1! The thread you created at the Teahouse, I do not believe editors are acting in good faith., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello Tdkelley1! The thread you created at the Teahouse, I am worried the gate keepers of wikipedia are too "gatekeepy", has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
You must be logged in to post a comment.