This user may have left Wikipedia. Dark Tea has not edited Wikipedia since September 11, 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
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).
My IP has been affected by a range block intended to target another IP editor, but my account shows that I'm a good editor.
Decline reason:
Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in. Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. — Sandstein 08:50, 22 July 2008 (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.
Why are you obsessed with Indians when you are of Japanese ancestry? You seem to be on a rampage to prove that Indians are not caucasians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids (both in the Asian American article where you insist on including Indians and in the mongoloid article where you insist on including indians). It sounds like you are jealous of the caucasoid features of many Indians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids. Bluescientist (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you've done a good job with the articles about the Caucasian race and Mongoloid race, so I was thinking if you could maybe take a look at the Negroid article some day? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the main problem with that article was that the user User:Muntuwandi "owned" the article, but he has now been blocked indefinitely as a massive sockpuppet-master. Another user with ownage problems in relation to that article, User:Jeeny, has been blocked indefinitely too. I think if anything, you'd make the article even less POV, as you always use citations, contrary to many other people who edit such articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, You made it very clear that it was a controversial view and all that, but it wasn't sourced, which is problematic for controversial material. Deeceevoice seems to be a sane person, contrary to Muntuwandi and Jeeny, so a talk page discussion could probably solve eventual differences, and there probably won't be problems if statements are sourced. I'll throw in my "two cents" if discussion gets heated, as I think I and Deecevoice are on good terms. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really curious where you are getting your references - in this case [1] it's obviously not from the book itself or a facsimile like Amazon Preview or Google Books, but must be some secondary source where the names were garbled.
Dark Tea, could you email me? Want to say something privately (not bad, don't worry!). Hope this is allowed. Email from my page, or just send to fiona2211814 at gmail dot com. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona2211814 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm blocking you for 3 months, though it really should be indef. As documented at Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race , you have systematically, over the last 3 years, fouled up an entire topic-area. Our "race" articles are all in a complete mess, and I reckon 70 percent of this to be your fault. Your credulous italicized inclusion of any lengthy quote from anyone, so long as it looks impressive, is simply unacceptable: reverting to re-include such junk is essentially vandalism. Particularly when attached to a distinct "racialist" agenda, as far as I can make out. Moreschi (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|1=[[User:Moreschi]] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. [[User:Moreschi]] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have [[Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian race|already stated]] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the [[Asian people|Asian]]/[[Mongoloid]] articles and their related [[Afro-Asian]], [[Eurasian (mixed ancestry)|Eurasian]] and [[multiracial]] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, [[User:Zaphnathpaaneah]], a black editor, edited the [[black people]] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power.}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Your block was made by Moreschi (talk·contribs), an administrator who is engaged in a content dispute on Caucasian race with you, as shown here. This block patently violated the blocking policy, which states: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". I'm therefore lifting the block without consultation with the blocking admin and will post this action at WP:ANI for review. – I have no opinion about either side's arguments' merits in the underlying content dispute.
Just a comment, this user seems to have been blocked simply for having a POV different from the blocking admin. That's pretty bad. Dark Tea's edits were obviously in good faith, and it seems that the admin has forgotten to assume good faith, since he/she just blocks editors for assuming "racialist agendas". I assume this admin is abusing his/her powers. In fact, Dark Tea edited all race related articles almost equally, simply adding sourced statements to them. Hardly "foul", and in any case, the block was way too premature, since the admin didn't even attempt to discuss the edits with Dark Tea. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never feel the need to comment on someone being blocked, but I am a little surprised at this one, as it seems to be unwarranted and a possible abuse of administrator powers. I don't do much editing on the Caucasian race article, but I've been following it daily. Just the other day, User:Moreschi started making major deletes and just said on the talk page that he thought it was sh** without much discussion or consensus. It seems to me that User:Dark Tea only reinserted what he felt to be cited material and was automatically blocked without warning? Seems a bit excessive to me. Kman543210 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your edits to various articles, I have come to the conclusion that your editing on topics related to race is unhelpful to the development of those articles. Since you have previously been warned of such problems, I am enacting a topic ban on you of any article relating to race. This means that you cannot edit any article which is functionally related to that topic. If you do so, you can be blocked from the project by any administrator for a suitable period. Thanks, Black Kite23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, by what authority are you issuing this ban? To my knowledge, unless Dark Tea is editing in a ArbCom enforcement area, we can't just issue a vague topic ban on one admin's say-so. --Elonka02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Dark Tea, please disregard Black Kite's above message. You are not topic-banned at this time. There is still discussion going on at ANI and the Fringe theories noticeboard though. I'm personally not that familiar with this topic area, so I can't tell what the fuss is about. I see people complaining about Dark Tea's edits, but without providing solid diffs that prove a problem. And I see no history of warnings to Dark Tea's talkpage either. --Elonka21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, Dark Tea, since you haven't been online in a couple days, the thread eventually died out and has been archived (ANI gets archived very rapidly). To see what was said, check here. Any comments you may have in reply, should probably be placed here at your talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 2008
In the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience a general sanction was established allowing uninvolved administrators to issue topic bans to editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia's content policies in the locus of dispute, pseudoscience broadly construed. Please read the case and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, especially WP:NPOV. Your editing history shows a consistent tendency to give undue weight to fringe ideas, and to promote pseudoscientific ideas. Should these problems continue, you may be subject to the remedies provided by that case. JehochmanTalk23:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the case, "Pseudoscience" is defined loosely as all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories. Which of those articles has Dark Tea been editing? Which pseudoscientific ideas is it claimed that Dark Tea is promoting? --Elonka18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the user's contribution history will reveal numerous examples of the user adding irrelevant material to Wikipedia for the purpose of pushing pseudoscientific ideas. For instance, this recent edit to Greys. Please check the user's contribution history in detail and you will see the pattern. Your help is welcome. If we can inform the user as to the nature of the problem, they perhaps can be guided in a more productive direction. JehochmanTalk19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the diff. I agree that on first glance, it was a questionable edit, and that the name of Dr. Jacobs was being used excessively in that article, at that time. However, I would advise looking deeper, and reviewing the subsequent discussions at the talkpage. There appears to have been a legitimate discussion as to whether or not Jacobs was a reliable source. Dark Tea initially presented arguments as to why he was, but then once better educated on Wikipedia policies, realized that he was not.[2][3] At that point, Dark Tea voluntarily acknowledged that Jacobs was an unreliable source,[4] and personally removed all reference to Dr. Jacobs' work.[5] Dark Tea should have perhaps shown better judgment than to add the information in the first place, but once challenged, Dark Tea quickly adapted to the community's wishes, and there have been no further questionable edits to that article by Dark Tea. This seems to me to be Wikipedia working normally, as well as what we want to see in an editor -- a willingness to re-examine their own editing practices and try to improve. I still am not seeing a valid reason to give an ArbCom warning, as I have not yet seen proof that Dark Tea has been editing tendentiously. --Elonka21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is one month old. I think it is too soon to conclude that there will be no further problems, considering the editor's long history, three years worth cited by Moreschi. Notice of the arbitration case ("warning" is an ominous word) to an editor who is active in the area is a good way to make sure they are aware of the conditions and to help prevent problems. It is not my intention to get this editor blocked. Quite the contrary. In any case, they are now on notice and will hopefully comply with relevant policies going forward. JehochmanTalk21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi was clearly out of line, and was abusing administrator tools. If you are going to be warning editors such as Dark Tea for what she might be doing in the future, perhaps you should also consider speaking to Moreschi about what he actually did? I know how interested you are in the topic of administrators abusing their access... --Elonka22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, it's becoming increasingly clear that you only arrived at this case not because of any interest in the actual case, but only because of your previous interactions with Moreschi. You clearly do not possess any real interest or competency in this actual editing area. If I was you, I'd disengage from this before another RfC is required. Black Kite23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, my interest has nothing to do with Moreschi. I just noticed the ANI thread, and on a spot-check about the block, was concerned that a lengthy block was imposed on an established editor, even though there was no history of warnings. That the block was imposed by an "involved" admin, was secondary. --Elonka01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on the matter of Moreschi's block, because I haven't looked at Moreschi's edits. However, I feel that Dark Tea has been editing contrary to policy and should be informed of the arbitration decision. Now that the notice has been given, my job here is done, and I will move on to the next task. With regards to all, especially Dark Tea who has been our gracious host. JehochmanTalk02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's just hope that Dark Tea reads this and modifies their editing on such articles, then none of use would have to do anything. Black Kite09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What might be most helpful to Dark Tea, would be if other editors could give constructive criticism as to what exactly they would like to see improved. Black Kite, could you perhaps give some specific suggestions? --Elonka18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I believe this user knows exactly what they are doing wrong, but to over-extend my good faith, they need to ask "are the opinions that I am inserting into the article widely held by notable authorities on the issue, and are they well sourced, or are they my own opinions sourced by random vague quotations from miscellaneous sources that I found?" Black Kite22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hit me up, if...
Greetings. We haven't had much interaction, but I'm dropping by to offer my assistance. If and when you need it, and if it's righteous, then I'm in. I'm not here often, so you may want to post to my talk page as well as drop me an e-mail. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)11:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG listed for deletion
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
