There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Block review - AndewNguyen. Thank you.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Floquenbeam (
talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)As I said in the block log, there is an overwhelming consensus at ANI that this was a bad unblock (I'm just enacting that consensus, so this isn't wheel warring). A way forward, expressed by several people at ANI, might be on an on-wiki unblock request, possibly resulting in an unblock with a topic ban from R&I. But if you want to remain retired, that's OK too. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I was gonna impose the TBAN, but WP:CTOP is not something I enjoy doing. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember, we are winning and will continue to win. We've just begun to scratch the surface with the Human Genome Project. Human biodiversity is a fact of life, inconvenient as it may be. If you become discouraged, just remember that ChatGPT will reference Wikipedia for topics like New York City or fluid dynamics, but it's programmers have already determined that it will never use Wikipedia for anything in the R&I topic area, owing to the politics involved. As long as people like you and I keep asking questions, and keep making noise, the argument will remain front and center, and not tucked away into some dark corner of the internet. If you don't believe me, just google a "controversial" topic on Wikipedia and you will get hundreds of hits, much to the chagrin of woke academia. The tide is turning, and no one can stop it. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 ( talk) 18:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- So...if admins needed more confidence that the block was justified. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Block review - AndewNguyen. Thank you.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Floquenbeam (
talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)As I said in the block log, there is an overwhelming consensus at ANI that this was a bad unblock (I'm just enacting that consensus, so this isn't wheel warring). A way forward, expressed by several people at ANI, might be on an on-wiki unblock request, possibly resulting in an unblock with a topic ban from R&I. But if you want to remain retired, that's OK too. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I was gonna impose the TBAN, but WP:CTOP is not something I enjoy doing. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember, we are winning and will continue to win. We've just begun to scratch the surface with the Human Genome Project. Human biodiversity is a fact of life, inconvenient as it may be. If you become discouraged, just remember that ChatGPT will reference Wikipedia for topics like New York City or fluid dynamics, but it's programmers have already determined that it will never use Wikipedia for anything in the R&I topic area, owing to the politics involved. As long as people like you and I keep asking questions, and keep making noise, the argument will remain front and center, and not tucked away into some dark corner of the internet. If you don't believe me, just google a "controversial" topic on Wikipedia and you will get hundreds of hits, much to the chagrin of woke academia. The tide is turning, and no one can stop it. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 ( talk) 18:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- So...if admins needed more confidence that the block was justified. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)